Talk:Checkmate/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: ChessFiends (talk · contribs) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you cite the book references in all the sections? There's stuff like the (Davidson 1949) page notes, but they're not in.
 * "in Pashto, an Iranic language the word" an Iranian language (comma), the word
 * "The term "checkmate" also has origins in the term "check", which means temporarily stop, and which also is in the chessplaying context related to the term "chess", which derives from the French word "echecs", which is derived from the alternating black and white pattern of an eschequier, or counting table, a pattern which was duplicated in larger form in some countries on the floor of the exchequer, a central bank, and whence such related terms as "checkers" and "checkered" were brought about.[citation needed]" that is one hell of a long-winded, practically non-sensical sentence, that also needs a source.
 * can some of the PGN be made into a single line? It spreads the article out too much to have it all in 17 lines for 17 moves, make them all 1 liners.
 * Several mates are not mentioned, such as the back-rank mate, boden's mate, arabian mate, anastasia mate, smothered mate, also scholar's mate needs a mention, and maybe fool's mate. All of these are fundamental, conceptual checkmates. Give them each a section, description and a little diagram. If any of them already have a full article, link to it with
 * Check (chess) in the see also category can be removed, because it's already linked in the article. Do the same for any others that are already linked, such as rules of chess and stalemate.
 * can you put the 4 king and queen diagrams all in one single row? It's all about reducing the whitespace, so that your article is more readable.

It's a neat article, and after you've fleshed it out to cover a few more mates and added a few references, I'll pass it, good luck. ChessFiends (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a bit out of context: the GA nominator had zero edit contributions to the article before making the nomination. (The activity minutes before nominating had no substance and were reverted.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply
 * Things like (Davidson 1949:22) are standard Parenthetical referencing, also known as Harvard referencing or author/date referencing. You The reader can click on them to jump to the reference.
 * "can some of the PGN be made into a single line? It spreads the article out too much to have it all in 17 lines for 17 moves, make them all 1 liners." - it is standard in chess literature to list the moves in the main line in a column, as they were before today. And if it is in the standard column format, it isn't PGN.
 * "Several mates are not mentioned, such as the back-rank mate, boden's mate, arabian mate, anastasia mate, smothered mate, also scholar's mate needs a mention, and maybe fool's mate. All of these are fundamental, conceptual checkmates. Give them each a section, " - there are too many of them and many of them are very rare. There is checkmate patterns. I do not think it is worthwhile to cover these in this general-interest article.  There are many other checkmates that don't have names, and the names of many of the ones in checkmate patterns are dubious anyway. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Added reply - I think the links in the see also should stay there, even if they are duplicates of links in the body. Someone going to this article may want to go to one of those important topics without having to search through the body of the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It may be standard in chess books, to list moves in a column, but in an article, it just takes up too much space.
 * Are you seriously suggesting that back-rank mates don't deserve a place in the article "checkmate"? It's one of the most common mates any player is going to come up against. All of the mates I mentioned are extremely well known and I'm asking that he covers the basic ones, briefly, and not the rare ones. ChessFiends (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Boden's mate, Arabian mate, and Anastasia mate are all extremely rare. The other checkmates have their own articles, which are linked to from this article.  No one except pure novices are likely to see a back-rank checkmate.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't object to Back-rank checkmate being discussed briefly in this article. I'm also thinking that it would probably be better for this article that rare/unusual checkmates should be split off to another article - keep this one simple.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Back-rank mates are one of the most common themes in chess, plenty of tactics revolve around the idea of there being a back-rank threat. And yes there are links in the article, but they should be covered briefly in sections of it, in order to make it complete. Maybe not anastasia and boden on second thoughts, because those generally involve sequences, like queensacs or rook sacs, and those can go in mating patterns article. But smothered is an extremely important, fundamental mate that isn't covered here. Back-ranks, arabian mate is seen fairly frequently. Scholar's mate maybe too, but I'm kind of meh on that one, it gets too much recognition heh. ChessFiends (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK - how about adding brief sections on Scholar's mate, fool's mate, back-rank mate, and smothered mate, with links to the main articles.  And with that, I think that perhaps the rare/unusual checkmates should be split off and maybe even two bishops should be split off.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty hard-core on duplication -- I'm against it. (That's what links are for. No duplication is necessary. And duplication leaves problems of maintenance, corrections, updates, synchronization, consistency, and so on. So I say avoid it. Make references instead; use article links instead.) The current article covers the "basic mates", I believe that is unique, and appropriate, for this article, as definition, and fundamental endgame mates. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If back-rank is added, it s/b precisely the same as at Checkmate patterns (to avoid & keep duplications to a minimum). I'm not sure about including back-rank mates, however. (The "basic mates" are straight forward. Beyond that, what is the criteria for picking & choosing? And why?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I worked on this article a couple of years ago. The idea was to tell in general about checkmate and then include basic checkmates and checkmates that don't have their own article.  There is a summary of B+N because it is one of the fundamental ones, but it is too large to include all of it in this article, so it has its own article.  Another slight exception is 2N versus P.  Some of this is duplicated in two knights ending but 2N vs. P is often considered a basic one.  Also, readers probably get to wondering about 2N versus K, so that is discussed here.  In addition, 3N is discussed here.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * IMO that original organizational strategy was (is) sound, and shouldn't be redone w/o a clear and demonstrably better org strategy. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think a 3 knights mate should be included in the checkmate article where back-ranks and smothers aren't covered. When people go to the checkmate article, they're looking to learn about the ideas of checkmate and the groundwork for the more complex mates. We shouldn't skip out those mates just because they're covered in their own articles, we should just make small sections for them, accompanied with diagrams and have a main article link to the page. Also something I don't understand about this is that only bare piece mates are covered, such as 2 bishops and b+n, but most checkmates don't come from solitary pieces, we should cover the other side of things, the ones with other pieces on the board. Also, maybe the Rare checkmate positions needs removal. These are just my ideas, I wanna help improve the article same as you guys, ChessFiends (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I see your point. But smothered mate and bank-rank do have their own articles.  Three knights is the minimum number that can force checkmate, for people who are wondering about two knights, and that is referenced.  However, the example (diagram and moves) are not referenced.  I thought it might be in ECE but it isn't.  ECE does have three positions with that material, but none of them involve a checkmate with three knights.  I think I'll remove that - it has been unreferenced for a few months.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "When people go to the checkmate article, they're looking to learn about the ideas of checkmate and the groundwork for the more complex mates." I really don't know what that means exactly ("the ideas of checkmate" = ?). And I don't know how, in an absence of any kind of survey data, anyone can know why "people go to the checkmate article". (The reasons might be different for different readers, and to suppose why the 900 views hit the article each day, without data, is only a guess.) To restructure an article based on one user's guess, why "people go to the checkmate article", I think is ill-advised. What is really needed, before an expansion or surgery is performed, is a plan, a vision regarding what the article should achieve. The original article vision, though limited, had a focused vision. If from there we just throw this-and-that in to cover a need for "well there are many more kinds of checkmates than the ones in the article" and it gives a sense of more completed coverage if additional mates are added, that is satisfactory for the feeling of achieving "more coverage", however, the thrust, purpose, focus, vision that the article serves, then has become blurred. (For example, "most checkmates don't come from solitary pieces, we should cover the other side of things". Sounds simple. It is not. Why isn't it? Because "the other side of things" represents, maybe, 1 million ways that mate has been done with multi-pieces on the board. The article would satisfy an undefined need for more coverage, but would lose any kind of focus.) The big problem here is in deciding what the scope and focus of the article should be, have a plan, before "expanding" and "improving". (What should be the aim of the article? Unless that is agreed, then however would anyone know if it is ever satisfied, or close to being satisfied? There would always be another interesting or practical or cool or instructive checkmate example to add, there would be no end, and no end, without a decided vision/plan/objective, spells "mish-mash".) There are three diagrams at the onset of the article, one is Fischer' Game of the Century mate with multi-pieces on the board. That is very suggestive, already, of mates with multi-pieces on the board. Was the inadequacy from the reviewer that this was insufficient but more need to be added, taken from Checkmate patterns? Okay, but how do we cherry pick? (The reviewer feels back-rank and smothered are obvious choices. But those choices are based on, again, subjective suppositions of reader needs/wants, and is only guesswork. For example, Bubba expressed his different view on the mandatoriness of back-rank mates, and for me, I don't think I've seen a smothered mate, after years of tournament experience as player, and spectator. When is the last smothered mate you've seen in a Grandmaster game?) This is my first encounter with "GA review" process on a chess article, and, I'm not very impressed. (I see no difference, -none-, from an editor simply making changes to the article. Or proposing changes. There doesn't seem to be anything magical about "this article is under review" that makes opinions in any way superior or wiser than simply any other editors suggestions put on the article Talk page for consideration. There seems to be some perception around "GA reveiw" that seems to say changes can be bolder and faster than normal editing evolution to the article, and, I don't see any basis in that whatever. The GA Review info page says anyone can do a GA review, without qualification, and, that is identical to the editing process itself, so, there is no difference I can see, and therefore also don't think the perceptions of edit changes or proposals have any justification to be seen in any other different light than just that.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Very sprawling, what do you suggest? ChessFiends (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No suggestions? So you were just here to complain about the way other people were doing things? ChessFiends (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Go soak your head, ChessFiends. Your bad-faith insult is way out of line. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to having short discussions of Fool's Mate, Scholar's Mate and Back-rank mate, with links to their main articles. So many people have probably heard of Fool's Mate that it can go in this article.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Okkies, what about smothered mates? Maybe fool's and scholar's can go in a single section, like ==Early mates== ChessFiends (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Smothered mate - use your judgement. As far as Fool's and Scholar's mate going together, probably OK.  Many people call Scholar's mate "Fool's mate" - I even know a master who says that.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've put them in separate sections for more clarity. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 14:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They need references. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, the second back-rank checkmate is unreferenced in the main article. Someone added that - they probably made it up or it is from an amateur game.  That needs to be fixed.  If you want to add smothered mate, go ahead.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay a lot of work's gone into this, so good job, but I feel as if I can't give this GA yet, nominate this later when it's been worked on some more. ChessFiends (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)