Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 May 31

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 31

Checkmate.

Why is it that a chess game ends when it's possible for a player's king to be captured - rather than when it's actually captured? They are clearly equivalent in concept. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's equivalent for perfect players, at least if you discount the clock. But it's not equivalent for real players — if you accidentally hang your king, you don't lose; you just have to take it back. --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also, don't forget the stalemate rule — if your king is not under attack, but you have to move, and any move you make would hang him, you also don't lose. It's a draw. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The question came about because I'm a notoriously terrible chess player - and I was teaching a neighbours' kid to play. I get him in 'discovered' check - but fail to notice - so I don't say "Check". He doesn't notice on his turn either...now it's my turn again and I finally notice that I can now take his king...but I can't because of the weird way the rules are written. SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that's the intent. Hanging the king is an uninteresting way for the game to end, so it was disallowed.

Another possibility that I may have heard somewhere is that it was considered disrespectful, or maybe politically dangerous, to actually capture the king. Don't know whether that's true or just one of those factoids that floats around in my head sometimes. --Trovatore (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, given that you don't play that much chess, maybe I should explain the term: To hang a piece is to leave it vulnerable to capture without adequate compensation (of course there's no adequate compensation for the king). --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was because it would be deeply unwise for the creator of the game to give a king a game in which the objective is to kill the king, but our article says the actual term means "the king is ambushed," not "the king is killed." DOR (HK) (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I wondered about that - whether there was some subtle political-correctness thing going on there. But I couldn't find a reference for that as a fact...and it's quite OK to kill the Queen. That's one reason I wanted to ask the question here. SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It's more realistic this way - in a real battle once the King's death is inevitable the King will surrender. There is no point playing that final turn, so why do it? As for forgetting to say "check", apparently there is no rule requiring you to, and experts often don't (Rules of chess#Check), so the rules were violated when your opponent didn't move out of check. I'm not sure what happens then in a formal match, but in a friendly match you would roll the game back and let them make a legal move. I'm glad I'm not the only one that is terrible at chess - I have an excellent record of teaching people to play by playing a game with them and them beating me in that game, it has happened several times! --Tango (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In a formal game there is a time penalty applied to any illegal move, and touch-move means that if an illegal move was made with a piece that can be moved somewhere else legally it must be (or for opponent's pieces being captured).Julzes (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! That hasn't happened to me yet - but it's usually not more than two or three games later that the newbie kills me. I don't know what it is about chess...I can usually beat most causal players at other games like that - I'm pretty good at "Go" for example (which I regard as a vastly superior game...perhaps for obvious reasons). SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the original reason is, the rule has important and arguably interesting consequences. At the very low level, do you really want to beat the neighbor kid because he hung his king? Can't you wait until he doesn't notice a mate in one?

More interestingly, we have such things as that a player who has two knights cannot force a win against a player who has just his king, not because there is no checkmate, but because the disadvantaged player can arrange to be stalemated instead. Whereas if you have two knights and your opponent has his king and a pawn, you may be able to checkmate him, because in what would otherwise be the stalemate position, he can move his pawn. See two knights endgame. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a satisfactory answer to the OP, but it is a rule of chess that the king isn't captured in checkmate. It must have been that way for hundreds of years. As far as not seeing that a king was in check and making a move that doesn't get him out of check, the rule (except for speed chess) is that the last legal position (i.e. the one where the king is first in check) is restored and the game proceeds from there. Bubba73 (talk), 01:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't capture the kind because it's not your turn, yet. The game ends in a checkmate when it's the turn of your opponent and he has one last chance to get his king out of the way and cannot do it. Friday (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's really not an answer to Steve's question. He knows the actual rules, as far as I can tell. He wants to know why the rules are the way they are. --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, and I'll see if I can find more info. But it is a rule. In American football, why is a touchdown worth six points? That is the rule. Bubba73 (talk), 05:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from page 22 of A Short History of Chess by Henry Davidson, the earliest Sanscrit chess (about 1400 years ago) allowed the king to be captured, which ended the game. To avoid accidental and premature ends to games, the Persians introduced the warning of when the king is under attack (now "check"). That was probably 1200 or so years ago. Later the Persians added the rule about not capturing the king, to avoid accidental game endings and disputes over whether or not the "check" warning was heard. Bubba73 (talk), 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And Trovatore is correct in that checkmate does immediately end the game. Bubba73 (talk), 05:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that a chess game ends when it's possible for a player's king to be captured - actually the game ends when it is impossible to avoid capture, not when it is possible to capture. Bubba73 (talk), 05:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

British Lions

Something I've wondered about, and I'd like the opinions of British people about this; is there some kind of local thinking or politics about the issue? The question applies to both rugby and soccer. Why do the British send individual teams to World Cup events? When the British Lions play, they are so much stronger. Surely a Lions team will have a better chance of winning a world cup? This applies even more so to soccer, where in the past so many talented players would have made a Lions team, instead of the stronger England team accompanied by the minnows Scotland, Wales, etc. Sandman30s (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of politics and posturing involved. It is rooted in each of the Home Nations individuality, even though England, Scotland, Wales and NI are not countries per se under the United Nations - we like to think we are and will fight to a certain extent to keep it that way. By forming a united UK or GB team for these sports, there is a perceived to be a high chance the ruling bodies would dissolve the individual national teams and force the fielding of a united team from then on, see for example United Kingdom national football team#London 2012. Hopefully someone may come along and give a better and more rounded answer. Nanonic (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that England is such a large portion of the UK than a UK team would basically be the England team with maybe one or two players changed and the smaller Home Nations would end up without a team. --Tango (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, someone is not thinking straight. It's not the numbers that count, it's individual brilliance. I can think of some Welsh superstars in soccer (Ian Rush, Ryan Giggs), or really good Scottish or Irish rugby players that would have bolstered the English majority in a Lions team. Sandman30s (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There are 12 Welsh, 11 Irish, 9 English and 4 Scottish players in this year's Lions tour. If I remember correctly, only 4 of the starters on Saturday were from England. /85.194.44.18 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All else being equal (which, within the UK, it pretty much is), a larger country will, on average, have more brilliant players than a smaller country. If 1 in 100,000 people make good top level footballers, say, then England would have about 500 while the rest of the UK would have about 100. Chances are good that more players would be chosen from the former pot than the latter. --Tango (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well historically Wales and Scotland have had some fantastic individuals, but beyond a handful of players per generation the full squad would still likely be an 'England + a few others' squad. Based on Wales_national_football_team#Senior_squad there are 7 'Premiership' players - with only 3 of those being regular starters for the Premiership team they play in. Compare that to the England_national_football_team#England_squad where all but 1 (Beckham) play in the Premiership and most of them are regular starters for their Premiership club. Scotland_national_football_team#Current_squad is a bit harder to compare due to their top-flight division, but they only have 4 Premiership players in their squad. This doesn't mean that these countries don't produce great talent, but another telling factor is...the population of the entirety of Scotland and Wales is barely that of London. England has a much bigger 'pot' to choose from in general (obviously not all individuals in a country are eligible but you get the idea). I don't think there'd be much fan-based support of the idea, given the rivalry and tribalistic nature of football. ny156uk (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that the international sporting authorities allow it. We don't compete in the Olympics as separate countries...why the World Cup football people would allow it, I have no idea. As for the relative strengths of (say) an "England" team versus a "British" team - I suspect that we'd do best of all if we sent a Manchester United team (or whoever are doing best this year) instead. The fact that the guys all know each other so much better, have trained and played together for years and there would be no internal rivalries from players of different teams who's been playing as mortal enemies a month earlier...I think they'd do much better than a team put together from many separate teams just a short time before the important games. But I'm not a "sports person"...so I probably shouldn't be answering this at all! SteveBaker (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we were kind of grandfathered in. It helps that we have separate domestic leagues as well (although I'm not sure Wales does). --Tango (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, and the Faeroe Islands all have international football teams; Hong Kong, Cook Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, etc, have international rugby teams. The home nations compete separately in the Commonwealth Games. In contrast the Olympics seems a bit more strict about its idea of what constitutes a national team. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously the difficulty with Man U would be that their team is made up of multi-nationalities (along with all clubs just about - save for Atletico Bilbao who I think still play only Basque players). ny156uk (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have the FIFA Club World Cup anyway. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In all of these answers, one word jumped out at me: tribalistic. As an outsider, it's hard to believe that sports unity is that hard to achieve given that the once terrible political problem with the IRA/Sinn Fein has been over for years now. All UK nations accept the same queen, do they not? So surely the 'Home Nations' should see the light and unify sport? We South Africans need a challenge in the next Rugby world cup ;) Sandman30s (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Even at the Olympics, where there's a single team, the name of the team is a worry. It's not "United Kingdom", but "Great Britain", which as we all know is a geographic term for the large island that includes England, Wales and Scotland (but not Northern Ireland). People from NI can choose to play for the "Great Britain" team (even though they don't live in Great Britain), or the "Ireland" team (even though they're not necessarily citizens of the republic called Ireland). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And thus, hopefully, nobody kills anybody else. 80.41.31.27 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Its actually a bit more complicated that all that, and not really to do with the disparity of talent in each of the nations. Its really all about political power. The Home Nations have a disproportionate amount of influence at FIFA for the following reason: Together in 1947, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were made "special" members of FIFA as a direct result of saving the federation from bankruptcy after the war. Part of the deal was that the 4 nations automatically hold 4 of the 8 votes on International Football Association Board - the powerful committee that pretty much decides the Laws of the Game - as well as automatic Vice-Presidency of FIFA (currently, Geoff Thompson). Since IFAB needs a majority of 6 to change anything, it means that the Home Nation, together, hold a veto over the will of the rest of the footballing world.

This influence, together with the simmering legacy of colonialism, pisses off quite a few of the other national associations at FIFA, and there has been moves afoot for a long time to remove the special status of the four nations. That hasn't proved successful (yet), but another tactic of those seeking change has been to argue that the four national associations should be merged into one (thereby reducing their number of votes to just one). The four associations have been very careful to keep themselves distanced from each other as much as possible, and they fear that merging together for the Olympics would seriously undermine that effort and lead to them losing their power. This is particularly concerning for Scotland, Ireland and Wales, which lack the financial clout and influence that the English Premier League lends the (English) FA. Scotland, particularly, has a record of influence in football administration that belies their relatively small size (consider people such as Andy Roxburgh, David Taylor and David Will), so its no coincidence they are particularly opposed to the idea. Expecting otherwise from administrators would be like expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas. Rockpocket 23:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain the use of the word "Lions" here for the ignorant non-UK people (e.g. me) in the crowd? There are a few listed at Lion (disambiguation) and I'm not sure which you're all talking about. Dismas|^(talk) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The British and Irish Lions is the name of a rugby team that is selected from the best players from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales' rugby teams. The OP was using this nickname "The Lions" to refer to that concept of a pan-British/UK team more generally. Rockpocket 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The lion (or, more specifically, three lions) is a common symbol of England, for example appearing on the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. It's a little odd for it to be used for a British team since it is very much an English symbol, not a British one... --Tango (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish Royal Arms also comprise a single lion (Or, a lion rampant between a double tressure flory counter-flory gules), and the traditional symbolism of the lion - strength, agility and bravery - seems particularly appropriate for a rugby team. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Dismas|^(talk) 00:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading United Kingdom national football team#London 2012 a conclusion was reached:

"A compromise was eventually reached between the four associations, whereby a squad of English players only would represent Great Britain. The FAs of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales sent a joint letter to FIFA stating that they would not participate, but that they would not object to England participating alone."

Isn't this like cutting off your nose to spite your foot? Surely the home nations could have allowed England selection of individuals to bolster their team? The pig-headedness of the politicians/management is scary. Sandman30s (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The fear is that by doing that for one competition they would be expected to do it for all and they want to keep their own teams for the World Cup. --Tango (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of it is to do with the tradition and history of football. England, Wales and Scotland have all competed as separate nations since the beginning of international football, and England-Scotland was a huge rivalry until recently. It would make sense to have a British team but it would mean giving up entire footballing pasts. There'd be no record holders, no famous matches, no soul. It would take a few international tournaments to get used to at the very least. Plus, noone in Britain likes change until it's happened. 86.8.176.85 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Trains

I've been noticing recently that in smaller stations - those with only two platforms and two tracks, not large stations with multiple platforms and tracks - trains always approach the platform from the right-hand side. This means that the trains are essentially driving on the left-hand-side, as on UK roads. What happens on the continent? --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They drive on the right. I've noticed before that trains seem to follow the left/right rule of the road of the country they are in. Fribbler (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually it's a bit more complicated. See here. Fribbler (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting link, thanks. It also reminded me that on the Liverpool Underground (UK), the trains approach from the left, making them essentially driving on the right-hand-side. --KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Paris RER and Metro operate in different directions. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(After clicking on the link above) ... what Fribbler said. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

verifying ISSN

I would like to verify the ISSN code of an online magazine. How can I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosquitoyer (talk • contribs) 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The ISSN Register is available online through the ISSN International Centre. I'm unconvinced that access is necessarily free, however: see their products page. Angus Lepper^{(T, C)} 17:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Our article "ISSN" says just that: "The ISSN Register is not freely available for interrogation on the web but is available on a subscription basis." - however, it does offer some other ways to get at the information - so read the article - especially the section entitled "Availablility". Another possibility might be to go to your local library - they may well have whatever subscription is needed to look up this information. SteveBaker (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

brightness of LED flashlights

How does the brightness of LED flashlights compare to traditional flashlights? (I know they use less battery power.) Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The white LED variety seem much brighter - I have both the single-LED 'pen-light' AA-battery variety and also a massive aluminium-cased, four-D-cell monster with about 20 LED's in it. Both seem to out-perform the incandescant bulb variety - although the LED light is much whiter than the incandescents - and that makes it tough to do comparisons 'by eye'. Also, it may depend on the manufacturer and cost...clearly the larger kind have a trade-off between more LED's or fewer LED's - giving more light or longer battery life respectively. However, I think that the convenience of never having to change another bulb means that I'll never buy another incandescent flashlight...that era is over. SteveBaker (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I bought a new regular Maglight two days ago and I was looking at the LEDs. They are a lot more expensive. Brightness matters to me but battery life is not much of a factor. Bubba73 (talk), 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They are certainly more expensive...but for me, reliability was the main thing. When I need a flashlight, it's generally because the power is out - or I'm stuck beside the road with a broken car at night or something. Replacing batteries is generally easy - but I find that the bulbs in incandescent flashlights don't last long - even if they aren't being used much - and vibration (such as when I keep the thing in the trunk of my car) kills them very quickly. So that's why I use the LED kind. The price difference seems much greater in the smaller flashlights - the big ones, not so much so. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

An LED flashlight could certainly be designed to put out more lumens than an equivalent incandescent flashlight, but among the ones I have seen the emphasis seems to be equivalent brightness with much longer battery life at a higher cost. That said, I have bought some little LED flashlights with multiple LEDs which are amazingly bright. The non-LED flashlights do not give Lumen output at all, in general, but LED ones often do. Edison (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the LED flashlights advertised watts. I think 3 watts was the largest I saw. A 3-watt bulb isn't that bright, except in a flashlight with it focused, it probably is. Bubba73 (talk), 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Corporations in the US

Can a company in the US be a corporation if just one person is in control, eg. the founder has all control no employees or members of the company can kick him out and there are no stockholders? --Melab±1 ☎ 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It varies by type of incorporation, and by state, but in general a corporation needs a small number of directors who take legal responsibility for the company. They're appointed by the stockholder(s); if a single party owns all the stock then they appoint all the directors. While they control the company, they're creatures of the stockholders, Things get much more complex when the founder sells a significant state to others, particularly venture capitalists. Some such experienced (some might say tricksy) players are occasionally accused of manoeuvring to dilute the stock controlled by the founder, sieze majority control over the board, fire the founder, and then run the business for themselves. Sand Hill Road has more than its share of folks who'll do this for you, help you avoid it being done to you, and fight the legal cases when it's done. 87.114.167.162 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you asked about the US, but if anyone is interested - In the UK such companies are called "single member companies" and the law makes special provisions for them. They can certainly exist, though. Strictly, there would be a stockholder, somebody has to own the company (assuming it is "limited by shares", there is an alternative generally used by non-profits), but you can have just the one shareholder. --Tango (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

National Graduate School (U.S.) ?

What about National Graduate School? To be exact, what does the USCG refer to in the [bio or Thad W. Allen] ("In 2007, Admiral Allen was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Science from the National Graduate School.")? --Scriberius 21:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable it is, but the Urban Dictionary has a definition. --Tango (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The National Graduate School of Quality Management. According to their promotional literature, Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the USCG, endorses it: "I not only support this program, I encourage it."

USCG. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Scriberius (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What country has the world's largest fishing fleet?

What country has the world's largest fishing fleet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.233.192.226 (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends - to some extent - if you mean by number of registered boats, or by size of catch. Currently China is the worlds largest fishery producer, second placed Peru, followed by Japan. However, that doesn't necessarily mean they have the most registered vessels, as many fishing boats sail under flags of convenience these days. The last true national fishing fleet was that of the Soviet Union before its dissolution. That was the largest in the world, at the time, and was run like a navy. Rockpocket 01:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)