Talk:Chess/Archive 5

Computers Vs Humans
In reference to "In 1997, a match between Garry Kasparov, then World Champion, and IBM's Deep Blue chess program proved for the first time that computers are able to beat even the strongest human players." "under standard tournament time controls" should be added.

Computers were stronger than humans even earlier in blitz games but lost routinely in tournament level play. This historic match was the first time a World Champion lost to a computer in "Standard Tournament" time control i.e 2 hours for 40 moves and then 1 hour each. xsspider —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a false claim. Kasparov did indeed lose the match to Deep Blue, but he had won an earlier match. Deep Blue then was reprogrammed specifically to beat Kasparov. Furthermore, it is the custom that great chess players review the previous games of their opponents, which Kasparov was denied, but Deep Blue was not. Furthermore, Deep Blue was modified between games in the match, to keep Kasparov from understanding the patterns of play his opponent used. Making the claim that computers can beat human players in a fair game is utterly false. - Tom Tolnam (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is true for 1997, the match was certainly surrounded with some controversy. But I don't think there is any doubt that the current top programs play on par or better with top human players, is there? HermanHiddema (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No there isn't. The fact that GM Michael Adams was crushed 5.5-0.5 by the Hydra computer is proof of that.Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph of the article it says that Deep Blue beat Casparov in 1996. I was under the impression that Casparov won in 1996, but lost in 1997 (when the programmers were allowed to work with the computer between games, which in my opinion made it a contest between all of them and Casparov, rather than deep blue and Casparov). Can any of you clarify the date so that we can make the opening paragraph and this section of the article consistent? 12.190.78.178 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kasparov lost the opening game in 1996, but went on to win the match. I guess that paragraph could be worded a bit more clearly. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The intro should definitely mention the 1997 match, not the 1996 one. The 1997 is the match everyone talks about it. The single 1996 loss is largely irrelevant, given the final 4-2 scoreline - even Kasparov lost to weaker players from time to time. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure it's irrelevant. It was the first time a world champion had ever been defeated by a computer in a game pleyed under normal time controls; and was front page news around the world. It got just as much attention as the 1997 match. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, I think you're wrong there. And talk of computer superiority was quickly squashed (for the time) when Kasparov came back to win 4-2. Any number of reliable sources will tell you the 1997 match, not the 1996 game 1, was more significant. e.g. Deep Blue co-architect Feng-hsiung Hsu in IEEE Spectrum October 2007, page 45. I'll try to find some online refs later. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's one from CNN for starters - "Kasparov? I've heard of him. He got beaten by a computer right? Well, yes, but not just your average chess-playing PC. In 1997 Kasparov was narrowly beaten in a six-game match by the IBM supercomputer Deep Blue." Peter Ballard (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it back to 1997; as that's the match mentioned later in the computer section and the lead should be a summary of what's in the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Improve Page Loading
When I refresh the page, the chess board and pieces take a long time to load. I find the png pictures to load much faster. Would it be easier to just make all the "permanent" pictures like the different moves of the pieces png files? I have very little experience with computers, just an observation. Lyctc (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Is en passant optional?
Is this special move optional for the palyer who has to take, or he has to take the pawn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.50.187 (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely optional. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless it is the only legal move. "A question often asked is 'Am I forced to capture a pawn en passant to get out of stalemate?' The answer is yes. When the en passant capture (or any other capture) is the player's only legal move, he must make the capture or resign. ..." - From Official Chess Handbook, by Kenneth Harkness, page 49.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit for gender-neutral language please?
If a player's time runs out before the game is completed, he automatically loses.

while White on move must allow a draw either after 1. Kc6 stalemate or losing his last pawn by going anywhere else.

Each player, referred to by the color of his pieces

The player must not make any move that would place his king in check.

then the opponent's pawn can capture it and move to square the pawn passed over, but only on his next move.

Also, the [[Xu Yuhua] link needs another bracket.


 * Thanks for these comments. As I am fairly new to the "gender-neutral" thing, could you please give us some proposals on how these sentences should be structured in order to become gender-neutral ? SyG (talk) 09:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a wikipedia howto on this at WP:GENDER. HermanHiddema (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the how-to, I have tried to change the ones indicated. SyG (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Most popular participant sport?
I've heard it said many times that 'Chess is the worlds most popular participant sport', I don't know if it's a myth, or real. I've also heard that fishing is the most popular participant sport, so I really don't know the answer. It would be interesting if something could be said in the topic about the sports popularity, at the moment there is a general statement 'chess is one of the world's most popular games'. ChessCreator (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just found some figures in 'Organization of competitions' section, doesn't answer my question but gives some useful numbers. ChessCreator (talk)

Sport
Chess is a sport although many people mistakenly think it isn't. Perhaps it would be possible to make it clear in the lead somehow. I do realise the article makes reference to the fact it is a sport 'Birth of a sport' etc. ChessCreator (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that calling chess a sport is a disputed (and not easily resolved) view. If you look through our archived discussions above, you will see opinions both ways. The Olympic movement recognises chess as a sport (see their website), but many other definitions in books etc. emphasise the 'physical activity' aspects of sports. Here in the UK, we have been unsuccessfully lobbying Government for many years to get chess recognised as a sport nationally, as our National Lottery only funds sports and the arts. If we could get some money for chess, it would make a massive difference, as most of our top GMs (Sadler, Hodgson, Nunn, McShane) have all but given up playing and there is no finance for development, good tournament venues, worthwhile prizes, etc. Returning to your central point however, if you want to call chess a 'mind sport', then that seems to be the best way to avoid any arguments. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked through the archive and while a few (1,2) people have popped up and questioned if chess is a sport, they have brought no credible information to the discussion. It is just uninformed people mistakenly believing Chess is not a Sport and more the reason it make it clear in this article.
 * There are sources to verify that chess is a sport. Online we have The wall street journal and quite specifically listed as a sport by the International Olympic Committee. I doubt anyone would argue that the International Olympic Committee is not a reliable source.
 * Regarding the 'books etc emphasise the physical activity aspects of sport', I think the Sport topic here on wikipedia say it nicely when they say 'Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors.' ChessCreator (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Added to lead now. I don't think we should dodge this one. Why have wikipedia if not to help people become more knowledgeable. ChessCreator (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I admire your resolve on this one and hope that "Chess is a sport" can become a universally recognised fact. I simply make the point that there will be many people who would simply laugh at the idea - so I'm just not sure the argument is as easily won as you think. Even your own Wall Street Journal reference/article comes from the Leisure & Arts Archive, so it's fairly evident where the Journal thinks chess belongs. Does the Journal have a regular chess column? Is it in the Sports section next to the football/baseball? Even if it is, the same can't be said for the newspapers here in the UK. As for the wikipedia definition of sport, whilst I'm pleased with the way it's worded, I don't think it counts as a valid, independent source. If we use that, then we're in danger of resorting to "Chess is a sport, because I say it is" Brittle heaven (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sport being a wikipedia page is not a source, but I like the way it's worded. Does the Guardian newspaper have it in the Sports section? It does online, http://sport.guardian.co.uk/. So does the telegraph telegraph, although it's not straight forward in it's presentation. ChessCreator (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm encouraged if the Guardian have done that to their paper version also. However, the Telegraph hadn't put chess in the Sports section, only that particular feature because it was linked to the London Olympics. I don't doubt there is plenty of evidence out there, only that it's a won argument. Brittle heaven (talk) 07:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to come with critics, but I have minor issues on the way the article has been changed: Could you please fix that ? I suggest to integrate the reference in the sections, and to put a general sentence in the lead explaining that, apart from being a game, chess can also be considered as a sport, an art or a science. SyG (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * given the style used in the rest of the article, the reference is not placed at the right place, it should be right after the punctuation point of the sentence.
 * it is better not to have references in the lead of the article; they should be placed in a section, and the lead shall only be a summary of the sections.
 * the first paragraph says "Chess is a game", and then the second paragraph says "The sport is [...]", this is confusing for the reader.


 * Yes, I will change this. Actually was using the word sport in the first sentence but changed it because the link didn't apply to the whole sentence.
 * Not sure where you get the idea about 'better not to have references in the lead of the article'. Is that your personal view or is there a wikipedia guideline on this? Other quality articles have references in the lead. Bughouse chess, Paul Morphy. It seems sensible to reference something where it's first used, else the reader could be left in doubt and unnecessary editing of the article is likely to result due to the common misconception about whether chess is a sport. ChessCreator (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to explain a bit about my comment on references in the Lead. This is clearly not a Guideline, there are plenty of featured articles with references in the Lead, and I have no great problem with that. But there is a theory/reasoning/practice thinking that as the Lead is here to sum up the article, it is better to put the references in the Sections, where they can be better used, developed and explained than in a Lead inherently concise.
 * I am not pushing to avoid any reference in any lead, but I notice that there are no references in the lead of that article. Thus introducing one single reference takes off some harmony and could make the reader wonder why there are no references for the other statement. If you prefer, I would agree either with no references either with each statement referenced, but mixing both approaches in the same article creates some discomfort. SyG (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well please feel free to change if you desire. My feeling is that without a clear reference to assertion chess is a sport in the lead, the lead will be edited to remove the word sport. This might not occur while it's under semi-protection but very likely occur if the semi-protection is removed. ChessCreator (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I preferred the opening sentence the way it was to be honest. I think "game" is a more accurate word to use than "sport." If you had to choose one word to describe what chess is, more people would go for the former than the latter.Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Chess is often, though not always, regarded as a sport, but first and foremost it is a board game. That is definitely mandatory opening sentence material, although I'm not saying "sport" can't be worked into it as well. -- Jao (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The multi useful word 'game' seems part of the reason that Chess is not often referred to as a sport. ChessCreator (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The UK Goverment refused to call Chess a sport, Raymond Keene campaigned for the change, so the goverment's decision was perhaps understandable.--ZincBelief (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Gaffe
This page came up first when I Googled "chess." That's the good news.

The bad news - This page apparently provides "hyperlinked information about history, playment, literature, computer games."

"Playment???"

- Peach (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Very odd, but I don't see the word in this Wikipedia entry. Perhaps it's Google having some playment with its users? :) -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Info comes from Dmoz.org ChessCreator (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, is there any way to change this? Are you familiar with how Google works?  Lyctc (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. Change it by contacting, (resubmitting) or becoming the relevant DMOZ editor. The chances of getting it changed are slim however. SunCreator (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It sure is a pity that it was inputted in wrong initially. Oh well, thanks for the quick reply.  Lyctc (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this true? (symbolism of the pieces' movement)
Within chess, the movement of the pieces represents how their loyalty is split between the Church and the Crown. Orthogonal movement represents political (Crown) affiliation, and diagonal movement represents religious (Church) affiliation.

So, Bishops are exclusively loyal to the Church, while Rooks are exclusively loyal to the Crown. The King and Queen serve both, but not at the same time. Pawns move at the command of the Crown, but fight for their Church. Knights, with their code of chivalry, are sworn to serve both equally. So the Knights' L-Shaped movement is actually a political action combined with a religious action. 129.174.91.115 (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is true. Bubba73 (talk), 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds more like a premise of a Dan Brown book. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn! I guess you can't believe everything that comes from Boardgamegeek. 129.174.91.115 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The direction of movement of chess pieces (except the Queen) is much older than the medieval Church/Crown duality and the Western Chivalry Code.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, for that matter, than the English name for the "bishop" piece. Many other languages call it simply a "runner" (e.g. Läufer) or even an "elephant" (e.g. Alfil), a remnant of the Indian-Arabic heritage. The only thing it seems to have to do with the Church is that someone once thought it looked kind of like a mitre. -- Jao (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Castling
The player must never have moved either the king or the rook involved in castling. Does this phrase means what is intended, that is, the king have never been moved and (not or!) the rook have never been moved? At least, Wiktionary define "either X or Y" as "only one from {X,Y}".92.39.161.221 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this usage of either is incorrect (actually, I think it's correct), but it could certainly be stated clearer, so I went ahead and changed it. I hope this is better. -- Jao (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The king and the rook must be on the same rank (to exclude castling with a promoted pawn, described later). I think that saying that castling with a pawn that has been promoted to a rook is not allowed is clearer than the explanation using the rank. Thunderklaus (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but that is how the official FIDE rule is stated. Bubba73 (talk), 23:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is chess a sport?
I have reverted the addition of to this page. I do not believe there is consensus to include Chess in the "Sports" category. (Whether it is a sport or not is another question which can, of course be discussed here.) Please feel free to talk about this here on the talk page. --Craw-daddy | T | 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion on "sport vs game" a few weeks ago (see above) and the consensus there was for "game." I agree with your revert. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pawnkingthree, the consensus was only for the preferred word game in the lead.
 * This issue of the category has not been discussed before. Chess is a sport and consensus was for the first sentence of the lead describes chess as a game which it is also. I see no logical reason of not having Chess in the sports category, or for it's removal. SunCreator (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem in discussing it; it's just that the user in question was making similar edits to Go, backgammon, and draughts without any attempt to discuss. They also changed the first sentence to "sport/game" which looked very awkward and I don't think would attract much support. Chess is a Featured Article, in theory no new changes need to be made to it. Altering the first sentence to change what it's described as seems wrong to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first line should be reverted to be games as sport/game is awkward as you point out and requires some sentence reconstruction to fit in the words in a neat way. With the other topic edits, they don't concern me only to add that I assume good faith, so there is no problem with such an edit, until found otherwise. SunCreator (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (e.c.) First of all, the construct "sport/game" is very awkward and unpleasant to read. There's probably lots of evidence that can be presented in both directions whether to include it in the sports category or not.  The online Merriam-Webster starts out "a game for 2 players each ..."  Obviously the IOC includes it in its recognized list of sports (but don't know if chess tournaments practice (random?) drug-testing of its winners).  The discussion above also doesn't seem to have a clear consensus, aside from agreeing on the word "game" for the lead.  The reasonable sort of compromise already exists in that the word game in the lead, together with a statement that the IOC recognizes it as a sport.  This doesn't, however, address whether it belongs in the sports category or not.  I would tend to think not, but am just one person.  As a brief remark, just because the article is a FA, this doesn't mean that it doesn't need any changes.  The move to the "sport/game" construct in the lead is a definite change for the worse in my opinion.  --Craw-daddy | T | 12:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice there is a sub-category in called <;nowiki> which seems more appropriate.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That category was just created by the very person who is inserting the "sport/game" construct. It might be a reasonable compromise.  Of course, in this case, if an article is in the "Mind sports" category then, according to the conventions on categories, it shouldn't also be placed in the "Sports" category as Mind sports is a subcategory of Sports.  --Craw-daddy | T | 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding to Category:Mind sports seems a good idea as Mind sports is the wording being officially used, see World Mind Sports Games and China to host Bridge Games. SunCreator (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the specific issue of random drug testing in chess. Yes, that has been introduced also since 2002 with someone already reportably banned the reason for the testing being to comply with the IOC regulations. SunCreator (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to the original point, it's a messy issue because English usage on the subject is a mess. I've no idea how the whole issue will translate in other languages.
 * I'd leave it as "game" in the intro, because "game/sport" is messy and looks indecisive.
 * As a category, "game" is too wide - it would include e.g. solitaire and computer games (i.e. games that can only be played by use of a computer, I'm not talking about ChessMaster etc.).
 * The trouble is that "sport" is very hard to define. Competitive play would not exclude computer games, nor would organised competitive play. In fact I've seen StarCraft described as a national sport in S Korea. "Organised" would also get into the political morass of what constitutes a proper organising organisation. Having a large bureaucracy is not a useful guide - a lot of computer gaming clans appear to be better run than the IOC.
 * For what it's worth, I'd follow Kasparov in categorising chess as a sport - I remember him criticising Karpov in the 1990s for concentrating too much on the sporting aspects of chess at the expense of the creative. Philcha (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the Lead is fine as it is, chess is foremost a game. Any game, and probably a lot of human activities, can be practiced as it is were a sport. Actually, I would even think that sports are just a subcategory of games, somehow. SyG (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, someone please summarize, is chess actually considered a sport or not? WinterSpw (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it hinges on one thing: whether or not athletics is a necessary part of a sport. Some people define "sport" that way.  If it must be athletic, then chess is not a sport; otherwise it is.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is sport. Best players get huge sums of money for playing -> it cant be just a game. And also the International Olympic Committee says it is a sport. Lab-oratory (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Variants: Bughouse
why isn't bughouse mentioned under the Variants section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.45.230 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there are severall thousands of chess variants and it is not possible to mention them all. But you can go and see the article on Bughouse chess that really has a very good quality. SyG (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not citing any sources but is bughouse by any chance the most popular variant? I've never even seen other variants played but I have played bughouse many times.  If it is most popular, I believe it should be mentioned in the variants section.  Lyctc (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be possible that bughouse is the most popular, but as you say we have no source for that. I guess some others like Suicide chess are popular as well. SyG (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

En Passant
There's a small type-O that should be fixed whereby the listed example claims that the black pawn originates on F5 when in reality the example should read that he originates on F7. (Small, but still incorrect) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellyHo (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is worded a little awkwardly, but I think it is correct. It says if the black pawn on f5 has just moved two squares, etc.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, and my confusion was because of the awkward wording. I retract my initial comments of its "correctness." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BellyHo (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Finnish version is good
I just dont know how to mark it to interwiki links. Lab-oratory (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure Good articles have a special recognition in interwiki links. Only Featured articles do, so we have to wait until the finnish version reached FA-class. SyG (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. We just have it in fi.wikipedia.org so I thought iw would exist here, too. Lab-oratory (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Help:Interlanguage links explains how to create mark FA in interwiki links, but not GA. Also, several chess articles are GA in other languages (e.g. in russian or in arab) and their link in the English Wikipedia does not have a special markup. So probably the best is to enhance the Finnish article until it is a Featured article! :-) SyG (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

photo gallery
I agree with removing the photo gallery. The set was an ornamental set instead of a standard set and the board wasn't standard either. Bubba73 (talk), 17:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a look at VictorLee's contributions, he's essentially spamming various articles, including this one, with his own photographic work. Check the fair use rationale for his images to see what I mean. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychology section
Quoting from the current article:

"Alfred Binet and others showed that knowledge and verbal, rather than visuospatial, ability lies at the core of expertise."

This is precisely backwards; read the paper "working memory in chess" as linked to directly after the above sentence (ref. 67). The paper even concludes that there is a negative relationship between chess rating and verbal ability!

216.16.222.80 (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some questions
Are we not allowed to edit a FA? Well I didn't know that. Seems all the edits I made were reverted suddenly. Anyway lets discuss the things I changed/queried. King fighting value of 4... who said this? It's not something I ever came across when I played. I think a reference is necessary here. Alexander McDonnell is born in Belfast and thus Irish, he is in the Category of Irish players. Calling him British is rather odd I think. Philidor was said to have discovered the importance of pawns/pawn strategy? - that sounds dubious to me. First to document perhaps, but discover, that's nonesense surely. Also Chess960, this should be better referenced by the more generic shuffle chess (although, of course it is not paticularly modern, and neither is Chess960) Lastly. King safety is often enhanced by castling. Well it can be enhanced, you can also castle on the wrong side and leave yourself, err is shafted an acceptable term? Well, that is why I would suggest my wording was better. Otherwise, lets pick out the percentage for how often it is enhanced. Oh and one I just spotted This random positioning makes it almost impossible to prepare the opening play in advance. well this is wrong isn't it? It makes it very difficult indeed, but not impossible.--ZincBelief (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are definitely allowed to edit a FA, but for significant changes like putting a "fact" template, it is probably best to discuss first on the Talk page. Regarding the specific issues you raised, here are some first comments:
 * King fighting value of 4: I had heard a value of 5 but I do not remember where; I agree with you it would need a reference.
 * Philidor was said to have discovered the importance of pawns/pawn strategy: This is a well-known fact, see his article François-André Danican Philidor
 * Having read the article I don't see any reference supporting the use of the word discovered.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Companion to Chess says L'analyze des echescs was "the first time the concept of the mobility of the pawn formation were laid down... he believed that ignorance of correct pawn play was the biggest weakness of his contemporaries." I'll add in a citation.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chess960: the appelation "Chess960" has an article while "Shuffle chess" is just a redirect to "Chess960", so it seems best to let it like that.
 * Well I hadn't heard of Chess960 until a few years ago, Shuffle Chess I had played whilst at school.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SyG (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient material
Please, then, can we have precise information about this as that was what I was trying to establish; also, what is wrong with 'vertical'? Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is more information at draw (chess). What do you mean about "vertical"?  Bubba73 (talk), 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: but it seems my edit about insufficient material was right, so why was it removed? 'Vertical' referring to illegally castling with a promoted pawn, where the rook is on the eighth rank, hence the bit in the rules about 'must be on the same rank'. Rothorpe (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't undo them, but (1) the word "vertical" is unnecessary. (2) There are other combinations of material that are insufficient to checkmate.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, K+B or K+N may be (at least theoretically) sufficient to mate. Depends on the defender's material. (Against a lone king, they're obviously useless, of course.) -- Jao (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, and this article is long enough without going into all of the little details, which are covered at draw (chess), which is linked in the paragraph. Bubba73 (talk), 12:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And now there is also a link to list of chess terms. Bubba73 (talk), 12:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Rothorpe, I am the one who undid your edit, and I did so because the comment you added is true only in an endgame, while the section where you put it is about all types of mate. It is very possible to mate with a knight alone, in the middlegame or in the opening for example. In other words, your comment was basically right but was not well placed in a section talking about mate in general. Thanks in any case for the interest you put in chess! SyG (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Game Drawn on Time
FIDE's Laws of Chess, Article 6.9, requires the opponent to have sufficent material to delivery checkmate, the loss is not "automatic". I directed some tournaments and found this a fairly common situation, and as director I allowed no discussion in the matter.

I'm a complete Newbie here and will defer the actual editting to our more experienced contributors.

^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackpeter49 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out, I have slightly changed the section "Time control" to mention that. SyG (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Avoidance of changing the Lead
I am reverting a recent change made by User:Shotcallerballerballer that changed the sentence:
 * "In 1997, a match between Garry Kasparov, then World Champion, and a computer proved for the first time that machines are able to beat even the strongest human players."

into the following sentence:
 * "In 1997, a match between Garry Kasparov, then World Champion, and a computer, proved for the first time that under the right conditions, machines are capable of defeating even the strongest human players."

I am reverting this change because I think the precision "under the right conditions" is too vague to be useful in the Lead, and lets the reader in a demanding situation ("what are these mysterious conditions ?"). It is jut obvious to me that if conditions are not "right", computers cannot win; for example if the computer has no electric power it will not win :-). Also, these right conditions are not explained later in the article, which makes it incorrect to place it in the Lead.

I am starting this discussion here in order to understand the opinion of User:Shotcallerballerballer and all other Wikipedians. SyG (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with SyG's reasoning. -- Philcha (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree, with one caveat: if the body of the article were changed to reflect what these "right conditions" are, then I would have no issue with the new version by Shotcallerballer. -19:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Under the right conditions" seem to stress the conditions, which implies that Deep Blue had unreasonable time limits or other stretching of the rules, which to the best of my knowledge was not true. The game used reasonable time limits and it was a reasonable chess match.  No need to stress the "Under the right conditions."  Instead of increasing accuracy, the phrase would confuse the reader on why the editor wanted to take the time to clarify "Under the right conditions."  I also agree with the above.  It is fine in SyG's sentence.  Liuyuan Chen  01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that someone changed the sentence from what SyG has above, by omitting the "under the right conditions" clause altogether. I think that deletion was appropriate, since including the clause at all suggests that there was something non-standard or inappropriate about the conditions. (Some contend that is true, i.e. that "Game Over: Man versus the Machine" movie, but that is POV.) I further modified the sentence to read as follows: "In 1997, Deep Blue became the first computer to beat the reigning World Champion in a match when it defeated Garry Kasparov by a score of 3.5-2.5." I think the name of the victorious computer deserves to be given: this was an extraordinary and historic achievement, after all. I also think specifying "3.5-2.5" is a good idea, since the lay reader might otherwise take "match" to mean simply one game. Krakatoa (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The version I edited was by SyG, and read as follows before my edit: "In 1997, a match between Garry Kasparov, then World Champion, and a computer proved for the first time that machines are able to beat even the strongest human players." I think it is best to describe what happened and let the reader conclude what that "proves". Krakatoa (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Question here
Shouldnt the fact that chess originated from India be one of the first things mentioned in the article? I mean there is mention of how the current form came from somewhere else and that is miss leading. So I put the fact that it originiated from India, with a citation, at the top of the page. ARYAN818 (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted it. The fact that the game has its roots in "similar, much older games of Indian and Persian origin" is already mentioned in the second sentence of the article, which is definitely prominent enough. -- Jao (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The game originiated in INdia. To a person that is not familiar with the history of chess, this article is kind of mis-leading to say the current form of the game emerged in Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from similar, much older games of Indian and Persian origin.....I mean that can mis-lead a user to either thinking it came from Southern Europe or it came from both India and Persia, which might be true, but it does not tell the user THAT CHESS ORIGINIATED FROM INDIA RIGHT? SO why not be fair and mention that it came from India FIRST, and then say the modern version came from Southern Europe? Wouldnt that be more fair? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Trying to pin-point what the issue is:
 * Are you afraid that a reader might think the game originated in Southern Europe, solely on the basis that Southern Europe is mentioned earlier in the article (albeit in the same sentence) than India and Persia? This, in my opinion, is highly unlikely. Any reader with any grasp of English will draw the correct chronological conclusions from "the current form of the game emerged in Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from similar, much older games of Indian and Persian origin". But of course, if turning it all around can be done in a good way, I wouldn't have anything against it. Simply adding a second clause about the origins of the game to the lead is not a good way, though. Now someone getting to "of Indian and Persian origin" will think "yeah, didn't they already say originating in India? And this is supposed to be a featured article?"


 * Is it not possible that someone might think "Oh the game started in Souther Europe?" I mean seroiusly is that not possible? So instead of issue's like that come up, why not just simply say CHESS STARTED IN INDIA first? I mean why is that so bad for you?.....Seconldy why would you start the article by saying how it originiated from Indian and Persian origin? I mean to a user who is not familiar with chess, that does not tell the user that CHESS STARTED IN INDIA. Again I dont undersatnd why you have to have it set up in a messy way. I mean instead of saying the modern version started in Europe, and originated from Indian and Persian origin, why not just say CHESS STARTED IN INDIA, AND THE MODERN VERSION CAME FROM EUROPE? It doesnt make sense. Your zig-zagging the article and not just being blunt. CHESS STARTED IN INDIA. Why not just say that? I cant believe this is even a debate?....I mean again.....CHESS STARTED IN INDIA.....And you want the article to start off by saying the modern version came from Euorpe, and originzted from Indian and Persian origin? No! CHESS STARTED IN INDIA. That's how you start it lol. Then after that you can mention how the modern version came from Europe. ARYAN818 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you afraid that a reader might think that chess-like games were played in Persia before they were played in India? Now that is a real concern, since "of Indian and Persian origin" only weakly implies that the Indian game predated the Persian one. I don't really know how to phrase it better, but it can probably be done. I kind of agree that this kind of clarification might have a place in the lead, as many people will not read the history section, but will still be interested in the very basic facts about its origins.


 * Yes! That is a concern. Saying that the chess-like games were played in Persia before they were played in India, does not imply that the Indian game predated the Persian game, or that the game might have started in India. I mean you say you dont know how to phrase it better, well I will tell you. Just say, CHESS STARTED IN INDIA, AND THE MODERN VERSION CAME FROM SOUTHERN EUROPE. ARYAN818 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, please assume good faith (which this is hardly an example of). It's not like anyone is disputing the importance of the fact that the first chess-like game (well, first known at least) was played in India. The only reason I reverted your addition was that it made the lead repetitive, mentioning Indian origins twice. I have no hidden agenda of somehow hiding or diminishing these origins. -- Jao (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it doesnt have to mentioned twice. As long as it says Chess originated from India, then that is fine by me.ARYAN818 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

← It's important to maintain the flow of this Featured Article and repetition does the article no favours. The game's Indian origins are not only mentioned in the lead, but also at the start of the 'History' section. Hence I reverted to previous version. Brittle heaven (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont say it has to be reptive. No you got me wrong. I am saying that it should be mentioned early that the game originated in India. Yes INdian origin's is mentioned in the lead. That is true. But it does not imply that the game ORIGINATED in India. And yes your right it does say the game started in India in the history section. But why does it not say that near the top of the article? I mean that is one of the basic thing's to mention right? And if you disagree with me that it should not be mentioned near the top of the ariticle, then why is it ok to mention that the modern version started in Southern Europe? I mean one of the most basic thing's you can mention is where it originated from. And it seem's that it might have originated in India. So I don't undersatnd why Souther Europe come's first, and then Indian and Persian origin's come after that. In either case, none of those two sentence's say that CHESS ORIGINATED IN INDIA. ARYAN818 (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's a moot point, but I would argue that the development of the game of 'Chess' in Europe (rather than it's roots in 'Chaturanga') should be the more prominent issue here. This is an article about Chess, not Chaturanga after all. Besides, the origins of the game are more extensively covered elsewhere. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. Lot's of things in history dont have DIRECT relations to something earlier in history, but it is still mentioned becasue it is significant. I mean CHESS ORIGINATED FROM INDIA. Most experts agree with that. And your telling me that should not be mentioned early in the article? You want it to mis-lead people and say that it had earlier origin in Indian and Persian history? That doesnt tell the user it originated in India. ARYAN818 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The current sentence is the following:
 * Sometimes called Western chess or international chess to distinguish it from its predecessors and other chess variants, the current form of the game emerged in Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from similar, much older games of Indian and Persian origin.
 * Here is a proposal to make it clear the origins are in India:
 * While it finds its origins in an older game from India, the current form of the game (sometimes called Western chess or international chess to distinguish from other chess variants) emerged in Southern Europe only during the 15th century.
 * Opinions ? SyG (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is fine by me. But for some oddball reason(s) they don't want to make it simple. I mean Chess oriingated from India. ANd this is a debate about weather that should mentioned early in the aritcle? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "History" currently says, "The game reached Western Europe and Russia by at least three routes, the earliest being in the 9th century" - in other words, it does not commit itself to Indian or Persian origin. IIRC there's a historian of the Chinese variant who argues the the Chinese variant is the grand-daddy of all the rest. IMO a top-level article should avoid taking sides on this kind of issue and should leave it to a "History of ..." article. So I prefer the original, non-committal wording - or perhaps even "...emerged in Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from similar, much older games acquired from India and Persia." -- Philcha (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are people who dont believe we went to the Moon. So you go by facts and or sources. And this article says, that CHESS ORIGINATED FROM INDIA. So if your not sure weather or not it came from China, then your contradicting this article, because this article says it originated from India. My argument, is why is that mentioned so low in the aritlce? That should be mentioned higher in the aritcle. Why is this even a debate? I mean sometime's when a article start's, it might mention the origin of something. So why is that a problem here? ARYAN818 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "History" section makes it clear, however, that Persia was just a step while India was older. The Lead does not describe that, putting India and Persia at the same level. SyG (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you. The history section mentions Chess originated from India, but the lead does not describe that. It kind of put's India and Persia at the same level. ARYAN818 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to be hyper-critical, but the "History" section is not very clear about dates:
 * Chess originated in India, where its early form in the 6th century was chaturanga, which translates as "four divisions of the military" – infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariots, represented respectively by pawn, knight, bishop, and rook. In Persia around 600 the name became shatranj and the rules were developed further.
 * Philcha (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

← Fair enough, so let me try it another way. I have a reliable source saying Chaturanga appeared in the 5th century in India, then was improved (no more dice and only 2 players), then moved to Persia where the first hints about Chatrang date back to around 550. SyG (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Chaturanga appeared in the 5th century in India, then was improved (no more dice and only 2 players), then moved to Persia where the first hints about Chatrang date back to around 550." That's a lot of action in under 50 years! Can you pin down the Indian date any more precisely? -- Philcha (talk)


 * It may still have appeared in the beginning of the 5th century, which would give way for almost 150 years of change before it became known in Persia. But of course, the more specific dates the better. -- Jao (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this source referring to the Cox-Forbes theory? Because that was discredited long ago. HermanHiddema (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Chess originated in India. That should be at the top. THen after that you can work your way to Persia and Southern Europe if you like. ARYAN818 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately my source is no more precise than that. It does not give a precise date for India and does not explicitely mention the Cox-Forbes theory. That is only a generalist book about chess, not really dwelving into the origins. Do you have other sources saying something about India before Persia ? SyG (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For an overview of modern chess historians views on Chess origins, you can read the papers of several members of the Initiative Group Königstein at: http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-jostenge/ HermanHiddema (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to go by fact's, or the best known fact's. And this article has a source that says Chess started in India. This is not something I came up with, it was ALREADY on this article. And not only that, but it was already mentioned in the history of chess article, that chess started in India. So again, this is not something I came up with on my own. This is something that was ALREADY mentioned in this article. My issue is, why is it mentioned so low in the article? I mean why not mention it higher? If your article says CHess originated in India, why do you have to mention that the older version came from Indian and Persian origin? CHESS CAME FROM INDIA. And that is mentioned. All im saying is, put that higher in the article. What is the debate here? ARYAN818 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I recommend ignoring ARYAN818, who has a long history of starting frivolous "X started in India" debates, without actually reading Wikipedia's fundamental policies (e.g. WP:V, WP:N, WP:S etc.). See Talk:India., Talk:Aryan etc. --Ragib (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A WIKI USER WHO CANNOT GIVE ME AN INTELLECTUAL DEBATE AND JUST GOES ON NON LOGIC.....The user Ragib.......Notice he said that I have a "long history of starting frivolous "X started in India" debates.....And yet he won't tell me how im wrong. Hey Ragib, instead of mis leading people about me having Frivolous debates, how bout telling people how im wrong?........He can't do that cus he will lose the argument.........and by the way.......Ragib......Are you sure it's frivolous? Are you sure you want to say that? Are you sure about homie? Becuase according to this aritcle CHESS STARTED IN INDIA. That is not something I started. That was ALREADY on the article. So does that mean the people who put that in the article (THAT CHESS ORIGINATED IN INDIA) are also starting "Frivolous" debates?......Ooooooo what do you say now Ragib? That's right I win and you lose the argument. ARYAN818 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * D. Nice yelling. Good luck "Winning" things. --Ragib (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, given the fact that the lead should summarize the article, and the fact that the history section is the third section of the article, perhaps the origin of chess should be moved down, to just before "The tradition of organized competitive chess started in the sixteenth century" in the third paragraph? I would consider that a more valid concern than moving the Indian origin from the second to the first sentence of the article. Eg, something like:
 * Chess originated in India, and reached Europe through Persia and Arabia. It took its current form in the 15th century, and the tradition of organized competitive chess started in the sixteenth century...
 * HermanHiddema (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am ok with a summary like that! Seem's fair. Although I think it should be mentioned as soon as possible in the article and maybe not low in the article. Hey Ragib user, I guess this HermanHiddema user is also like me too? Becuase appartely he/she also agree's chess originated in India . ARYAN818 (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey "Aryan818 user", actually HermanHiddema makes a logical argument per WP:S, WP:V. It might benefit you to read them too. Wish you all the best. --Ragib (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Queen
No-one has mentioned that the Queen replaced the Vizier. This seems fairly important to me. (The fact that I'm unable to edit the page, long after four days of joining, is also fairly annoying. Imho, Wiki's openess and policies need better defining). Could some-one please make this change:

- This made the queen the most powerful piece; consequently modern chess was referred to as "Queen's Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess"

+ In fact, the Queen is the most modern chess piece. It replaced the King's adviser, or "Vizier", and it's appearance probably reflected the rising power of female monarchs throughout Europe. Hence, it's appearance was the subject of much controversy, and the new game was sometimes referred to as "Queen's Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess". Stevenaaus (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As for why you can't edit the page, 4 days is not enough, you also need 10 edits. See User access levels. -- Jao (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll just go change ten things i know nothing about then... should only take a minute.
 * Sorry for the irony. The Chess page is nice. Stevenaaus (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Small Spelling Error
in the History segment, in the first paragraph the word "evolve" is misspelled here: "... represented by the pieces that would evlove into the modern pawn, knight, ...". The page is locked from editing so someone who can should correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.96.116.14 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. If you get a user account you can make such changes. Bubba73 (talk), 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Turing's chess algorithm
In the "Mathematics and computers" section, in the third paragraph about an algorithm being sort of a holy grail for chess, it might be worth mentioning Alan Turin's famous attempt: http://www.turingarchive.org/browse.php/B/7 67.130.43.2 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference. I have added it in the footnote "62". SyG (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Chess
As a rule, terms should be defined if they are specific to a subject. From the start, this article assumes that people will understand undefined terms and concepts, which could lead to terribly wrong assumptions.

The introduction mentions Kasparov losing to Deep Blue with a score of 3.5-2.5. That's the only mention of the word score in the entire article. Draw is defined elsewhere as tie, but there's no mention of how it relates to score. It's too early in the article to assume a reader knows that draws even exist. One might presume that if nobody won, nobody scored. It could leave one wondering how somebody can win half a game. If the above had said +.5=3-1, it would have been even worse.

The strategy section talks about point values (relative to pieces) which one might think are related to scores, making the above more confusing. Tournament gets mentioned in the Birth of a sport section, but there is nothing that describes the structure of tournaments or championships there.

Since match is commonly used for a single game or series of games, a person could easily assume that tournaments are single-elimination with single games for each round. Then if an article somewhere says somebody won three tournaments, lists scores such as 8.5/11 9/14 10/11, and says the winner lost 4 games, it won't make sense. Since this is the article that they would go to for clarification, it should explain what scores mean, how they relate to matches, which would clarify that term, and how they relate to tournaments.

There are Wikipedia articles for round-robin, swiss, single-elimination and double-elimination, none of which are mentioned in the Chess article. It would not be hard to explain the above using links as needed. Hagrinas (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in the context of the article, the terms like "score" or "draw" are plain English words and therefore they should not be linked/explained (see Only make links that are relevant to the context). - Regarding the "tournament": In the history of chess, many formats of tournaments were used, therefore it is not possible to link the term in general use to a given format. And we have no place enough in this article to go in the details of every single tournament. There is some info in the part about history and in the chapter Competitive play, but a full account would be too lenghty.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't often get feedback from readers who are less involved in chess than we are, so we should make the most of the rare occasions when we get some. Regarding the items Hagrinas raised:
 * The lead gives the score in Deep Blue vs Kasparov, and the fact that this was the first time a computer beat a reigning World Champ; but the main text does not. This is contrary to WP:LEAD. I've edited the "Computers" section and added Human-computer chess matches & Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov to its list of "main" articles, and have added refs for the brute-force approach. We need a supporting article Chess match.
 * We should scrap the bit about the point values of pieces as that's a rough guide for beginners but does not describe how even moderate p[layers approach the game. There is no quick fix for this and I'm busy with other articles at present, so I'll leave it to you guys. A wikilink to Chess strategy would be helpful, but Chess strategy also needs a major upgrade to describe how real players think.
 * Section "Organization of competitions" should mention the most important competition formats, with wikilinks as appropriate. --Philcha (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Informal review
I noticed a few other things while  - in particular I also noticed some unreferenced statements. At present I suspect the article would fail a WP:FAR. I don't know whether instant fails are allowed in FARs, but they are allowed in WP:GAR (wrongly, IMO). So here are some comments, which I hope will help - sorry I don't have time to do much of the work, but I'm busy at present both in real life and on WP (see Sponge and Cnidaria).

Rules

 * The whole section needs refs. Since Rules of chess is now a GA, this should be easy.
 * Comment: The only major source, official FIDE rules, is properly cited, and which other sources do we need? Perhaps we can repeat the same reference at the end of each paragraph, but is it really a great improvement? Moreover in WP "Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, when checking content added by others, and when uploading an image" (WP:CITE) - which is probably not this case.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the wording of various WP guidelines is not altogether clear or consistent, and in recent practice reviewers have demanded more. --Philcha (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found a lot of dead links to FIDE's site, please check them all, including this one, and add accessdates. --Philcha (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a pity WP has no "play through this game" widget, as some readers may find it easier if they can see the rules in action. How about linking to one of the many sample games we use in articles about top players?
 * Comment: There are already two short games animated below in the article (Immortal game + Scholar mate). Since this is not a course of chess, but only an encyclopedic entry, we do not need to be too instructive, I think.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ioannes Pragensis, we must have avoided edit conflict by milliseconds! The 2 main GIFs run at blitz speed and the "Immortal Game" one cycles indefinitely. The Scholar Mate one might be a good illustration for the "Rules" section. --Philcha (talk)
 * Made one small copyedit re pawns capturing.
 * I copyedited the caption of the promotion / en passant diagram.
 * In "End of the game" I've copyedited to "even with a much superior position", and w-linked "timed"

Strategy and tactics

 * The explanation of "strategy" in the intro para is inadequate. In general, one decides whether one is playing for a win or draw, then how best to achieve this, and only then where to place pieces. One of our stronger players(? begins with yet another K?) shoudl look at this and decide what is a concise but realistic summary. A ref would be useful, but possibly not obligatory as this is a "mini-lead".
 * I've copyedit the para about 3 phases: "move their pieces into useful positions for the coming battle"; "usually the fiercest part of the game"; "and pawn promotion is often decisive".
 * I think the 2nd para may need a ref or 2, as it contains more chess-specific info than the first.

Fundamentals of strategy

 * I think this needs a rewrite to describe how real players think. It might be helpful to explain that strategic thinking is hierarchical, e.g. (top level) play for win or draw? (2) attack or sustained pressure (if playing for a win), passive or active defence (if for a draw)? (3) pawn structure an piece placement. If a hierarchical presentation is used, clade may be useful. If so, give me a call as I use it a lot in paleontology and related articles.
 * This is more about chess psychology, not about strategy - the discipline has traditionally a more limited scope. Moreover as far as I know there is no clear consensus about how chess players really think (in fact everybody thinks in his own way, which is what makes chess interesting).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I sympathise, but I disagree. First from a presentational point of view, especially for beginners, that's a normal method oof teaching strategy, whether it's related to war, business, games, whatever. While there's a lot of truth in "no clear consensus about how chess players really think", e.g. Botvinnik thought in mainly strategic terms and Tal almost exclusively in tactical variations, I suspect the top-down approach is the most accurate description of how they think about strategy. I'd also suggest that failing to re-evaluate top-level goals is a major cause of loss, e.g. if one unexpectedly loses the initiative but does not realise this. I'm also an arm-chair tennis fan, and have seen countless rallies lost when players fail to re-evaluate the situation, especially who's in the driving seat. --Philcha (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Real players don't count piece values
 * I testify hereby that I sometimes count piece values while playing chess. Of course in most real positions the material is either balanced or clearly unbalanced, so that nobody needs to calculate it. Unless one is a computer.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not how top players appear to play, e.g lonmg-term pawn or exchange sacs were / are a hallmark of the Soviet school. I suggest asking Krakatoa about this, as he's a strong player who competes and therefore has opportunties for discussion with other strong players. --Philcha (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs needed!

Fundamentals of tactics

 * I've copyedited to "forced variations where much less than the best move would lose quickly" and "strong players can calculate very long sequences of moves". If you don't like "forced variations where much less than the best move would lose quickly", I think an article Forced move is needed, and a wikilink to it here.
 * Need wikilinks to explain "exchanges of material" and "double attacks".
 * I've copyedited to "can be combined into more complicated combinations, sequences of tactical maneuvers that are often forced from the point of view of one or both players"
 * Hence I've removed the sentence about combinations from the following para.
 * I've added a real puzzle. Feel free to replace it with a simpler one from a "how to" book.¨
 * Comment I am not happy with it. I suggest to remove it or at least change the wording. Per WP:NOTGUIDE. Puzzles for readers generally do not belong in Wikipedia.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a realistic exmaple of a chess puzzle (perhaps a bit too advanced), not a "how to". Compared with the "Rules", "Tactics", "strategy" and other sections about play, the puzzle well within WP:NOTGUIDE.


 * I'm not sure the Lucena pic is helpful, as the quality is poor, the pieces symbols are archaic and the text is in Spanish - and were the powers of the pieces the same as now?. I'd remove it and add a ref in the text to chess puzzles in 1497
 * Comment The picture does not serve as a real puzzle for the readers, but is there to add a historical context. To show that tactics has evolved from the very beginigs of chess.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Refs needed!
 * Given the poor quality of the image, text would be more informative. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening

 * I've added "and to force such weaknesses in the opponent's position"
 * "Apart from these fundamentals, other strategic plans or tactical sequences may be employed in the opening" is a uselss sentence. I've simply deleted it, since "The fundamental strategic aims of most openings are similar ..." covers the essentials well.
 * Refs needed!

Middle game

 * Nice summary at this level of detail. Also illustrates major strategy issues nicely. Perhaps "Fundamentals of strategy" could link to this (using anchor).
 * Refs needed!

Endgame

 * Nice summary, but needs refs!

Predecessors

 * I copyedited to "xiangqi (Chinese Chess) or one of its predecessors"

Origins of the modern game (1450–1850)

 * IIRC there were other issues about the moves in the 1850s - Howard Staunton's intro to the 1851 tournament book discusses at least one in detail. See also Ludwig Bledow.
 * I copyedited to "Writings about the theory of how to play chess began to appear in the 15th century" - "corpus of theory" was too academic for 12-year-olds.
 * Needs a few more refs - WP is getting tougher on this all the time. Examples include the list of early European chess writers; chess problems and puzzles, and Handbuch des Schachspiels.

Birth of a sport (1850–1945)

 * I copyedited to "his brilliant, energetic attacking style became typical for the time, although it was later regarded as strategically shallow" and added ref for "shallow"
 * I dislike the phrase "official World Chess Championship" and IIRC others are uneasy about it. How about "formal"?
 * "chess was revolutionized by the new theoretical school of so-called hypermodernists" looks to me like an overstatement. To me modern chess looks more like the "classical" Steinitz-Tarrasch approach sharpened up with Em. Lasker's pragmatism and the tactical aggressiveness of the Soviet school - see Emanuel Lasker and Mikhail Botvinnik for details and refs. Editors better versed in chess theory than I am should review and amend this para.
 * I copyedited to "The tradition of awarding such titles was continued by the World Chess Federation ..."
 * No shortage of refs here! The rest of the article should follow this section's example.

Post-war era (1945 and later)

 * I copyedited to "... FIDE, who have controlled the title since then, with one interruption"
 * I think the description of the FIDE system should be shorter, e.g. "a match every three years between the Champion and a contender chosen by a series of qualifying tournaments that itself took three years". Going into more detail raises too many exceptions / changes, e.g. additional Interzonals, restriction on number of players from one country in Candidates', changes in format of Candidates' and titel match, introduction and aboliiton of rematch rule, etc.
 * The rest of 1948-1993 should be made more concise. The basic fact is that the FIDE system operated as designed during that period and the greatest challenge / exception was Fischer's default in 1975.
 * the other following FIDE's new format of many players competing in a tournament to determine the champion" is an over-simplification, as Karpov won a "classical" match against Timman in 1993.
 * Anand-Kramnik 2008!
 * Might be simpler to split this section into 1948-1993 (? "Birth of the FIDE World Championship system" and "Spilt and re-unification" ?)

Place in culture

 * Ref needed for "Many of the elaborate chess sets used by the English aristocracy have been lost, but others survive, such as the Lewis chessmen."
 * Ref needed for"On the other side, political and religious authorities in many places forbade chess as frivolous or as a sort of gambling."
 * I'd cut the Frankiin quote to "By playing at Chess then, we may learn: 1st, Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action… 2nd, Circumspection, which surveys the whole Chess-board, or scene of action: - the relation of the several Pieces, and their situations… 3rd, Caution, not to make our moves too hastily…" BTW see WP:MOS on diareses; IIRC the HTML diareses is deprecated and ... is preferred.
 * Ref needed for "Many schools hold chess clubs and there are many scholastic tournaments specifically for children. In addition, many countries have chess federations, such as the United States Chess Federation, that hold tournaments regularly in addition to FIDE."

Notation for recording moves

 * The cited FIDE link is now dead - I think they've restructured the site. A more stable ref would be good, e.g. any recent book.
 * Please check other cited URLs, and add accessdates.
 * Needs a ref for Scholar's Mate.
 * Needs refs for uses of # and of ++
 * I suggest this should be moved up to follow the "Rules" section. Readers would then have all the info they need to understand sample games, move sequences, puzzles, etc. later in the artcile. --Philcha (talk)


 * Notation must be in the beggining so that readers can understand what is said in the article. --91.139.221.37 (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Chess composition

 * I added a ref for "Chess composition is a distinct branch of chess sport, and tournaments (or tourneys) exist for both the composition and solving of chess problems."

Organization of competitions

 * Needs refs for Judit Polgar and for the current Women's Champ (also check it's up-to-date, as the article omits Anand-Kramnki 2008).
 * Rest of section also needs refs!

Titles and rankings

 * All cited FIDE links are now dead - I think they've restructured the site.
 * Please check other cited URLs, and add accessdates.
 * Needs refs for national titles, composers and solvers of chess problems, and correspondence chess players.

Mathematics and computers

 * Para beginning "With huge databases of past games and high analytical ability, computers also help players ..." needs refs.

Variants

 * Should explain why there are variants of "modern chess", and list a few more, e.g. Capa's - with refs, of course. --Philcha (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Article too large
A meta-comment, which probably won't go down well: the article is 80k long, past the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article. I think the entire article text is redundant, duplicating other good articles. The text should almost entirely be removed (or moved into sub-articles), and replaced with a short table of contents, where users can then click, "rules of chess", "history of chess", "chess strategy" etc. IMHO, anyway. (If the user doesn't know how to click links, they shouldn't be using the web). Peter Ballard (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I think this is such an important article that it would be a fairly complete overview without having to follow a bunch of links to other articles.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * For reference, here is the guideline on size: Article size. Bubba73 (talk), 02:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That 80KB includes 82 footnotes plus references, external links, "see also", diagrams, etc, which do not count as readable text. Don't count those and it is probably under 60KB.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, point taken on text size, though it's still on the large side. But the article is not a "fairly complete overview". I would rather call it "a very detailed intruction manual plus history plus exposition". I remind editors of NOTMANUAL - Wikipedia is not a manual or a textbook. Instead of giving an overview and introduction to chess, the article buries itself in instruction-level detail - the rules of chess, for example - which are duplicated in other articles in any case. A "fairly complete overview" would have a couple of paragraphs describing the game, then a pointer to rules of chess. A paragraph on the importance of strategy and tactics (and openings and endgames), then a pointer to detailed articles. A broad history, then a pointer to history of chess; etc. As it stands, not only does it duplicate existing articles, but it tries to be everything, and which I suspect makes it less than useful for most readers. (Because I doubt very few readers come to the article for the rules, plus strategy hints, plus history, plus the importance of chess in culture, plus chess variants - they will typically come for ONE of those things only). The article should be an introduction and overview of chess (and all its facets), and then point the reader to the appropriate sub-article, rather than dive into detail. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the current article is probably similar to what a good paper encyclopedia would have. Any others want to give their opinions?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion for the moment is that both of you have good arguments. Moving the article to a much more concise form is a very interesting option, but a crucial one that needs to be discussed thoroughly before being implemented, because I do not know what the "official trend" is in such cases. My advice:
 * Before we undertake any major reduction, the sub-articles should be at least B-class and preferably GA-class, otherwise "Chess" would lose its FA-class. I mean, an article cannot be an FA if it is just a collection of Start-class sub-articles.
 * We could raise the question to the FA-experts, asking if it is better to see the article as a short introduction with links to other articles that are better developped, or if it is better that the article stands on its own. Surely "Chess" is not the only article in that case !
 * SyG (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Readability analysis of Chess (useful tool, I keep a link on my User page) gives:  Wikitext: 78.2 KB;   Text: 50.6 KB; Proses: 48 KB - I think "Proses" means readable text. So I don't think the article's size is a concern, although it looks big on-screen because of all the diagrams, etc.
 * I think it would be best to improve the article before involving FA-experts. In the process it would be a good idea to try to simplify the language, as the Readability analyser gave reading ages of 16-18, and I think 12 would be an appropriate target. --Philcha (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Admittedly my Britannica CD (which has the text of the paper encyclopedia) has one big chess article. But with the web and links I think we can do better. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Peter Ballard. I think the most important question is how to make the best use of the editor person-hours. Chess has some problems at present, but these can be fixed without the greater effort that would be required to re-package the topic over several articles. After Chess] is improved, I think there are enough chess articles that should be brought to GA or better - a couple of months ago I asked the WP v 0.7 team what the priorities were (generally, not just for chess), and they said improving the weaker articles. If [[Chess were to be re-packaged, then I think SyG's right, the sub-articles should be at least B-class and preferably GA-class before Chess is downsized. -Philcha (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article size is high, but tolerable. According to this script, the article has 45,195 bytes of readable prose, which falls under the 50kB limit.  Sections 2 and 3, "Strategy and tactics" and "History", are the longest, at roughly twice the length of the next longest sections.  However, they seem reasonably well-organized and easy to digest, in my opinion.  For comparison, major scientific FA's such as DNA, Immune system and Bacteria tend to be around 40 kB. Proteins (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics, the average FA class article is about 25kb of readable prose. The current size of 45kb puts chess in the top 10% longest articles. I think some pruning couldn't hurt, say the shave 10-20% off the length, but nothing drastic needs to be done. HermanHiddema (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The main thing I think should be done is to have a separate History of chess article and put most of it there. There is the Origins of chess article, but otherwise all of the history is in this article.  Either the Origins article could be incorporated into History or it could say by itself.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started the History of chess article with the contents of the current history section plus an added lead. I suggest we merge Origins_of_chess in to that article, removing it from the Origins article. That way, the Origins of Chess article can also serve as a starting point for an article like "History in Xiangqi" or "History of Shogi". When done, the current history section could be summarized into a few paragraphs. HermanHiddema (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good!! Bubba73 (talk), 16:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dead URL links
I just remembered another useful tool - The same editor's Linkchecker: Chess]. This tool has a lot of options, including using Internet Archive links. The problem links in Chess are mainly to FIDE, and I wouldn't use Internet Archive links for those, in case there have been changes in the content. At present I wouldn't use its automated "Repair" option, as the documentation suggests it scraps really dead links. At present it also has no facility for helping editors to find there the problem links are in the article, so one just has to use whatever find & replace facility one has. --Philcha (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have tried to fix/improve all the links. Tell me if there are still some problems. SyG (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Initial position
At the top of the article, the diagram and the photograph do not agree., They are mirror images. I suspect that the diagram is correct and that the photo wrong. It would be better if a photo was available with White at the bottom, so that it matches the diagram convention. -- SGBailey (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not mirror images, just rotated 180°. Both are correct, but viewed from different players' side. I agree that it could probably be confusing, but on the other hand, it's kind of nice to have both views. Perhaps the caption on the photo could be tweaked a little? -- Jao (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest we use a better image of the starting position. Bubba73 (talk), 17:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This Image:Staunton chess set.jpg is a better one, and I've seen other better ones, but they aren't in the Chess Images category. If this one isn't considered good enough, I'll take a good photo of the starting position.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On relooking, I agree they aren't mirrored - I just got confused. Are there any chess photos where half the board isn't all dark and gloomy? -- SGBailey (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I can take a better one than either of those two. Bubba73 (talk), 21:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How about this one; is it OK? Bubba73 (talk), 19:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems very good to me. Let's go ahead ! SyG (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is another possibility I found. Bubba73 (talk), 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the first one, I find the perspective is better. SyG (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed it in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Composition of the first picture isn't too good though. The board's edges are cut and the angle seems awkward.  I probably have it wrong though.  Just my thoughts.  Lyctc (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I could reshoot it to get the corners of the board in (I wanted to get tighter on the pieces and squares). I don't think it was important.  I got it at an angle like that so that except for Black's queenside, the pawns and the pieces on the next rank don't overlap much. Bubba73 (talk), 04:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting reason. Lyctc (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is one of the reason why I prefer the first picture to the second: the king and queen are better distinguished from their respective pawn. SyG (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

History of chess
I have merged Origins of chess to History of chess. I deleted the section Chess because it was a large content forking of History of chess: see Content forking. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with slimming the section down considerably, but wiping it out altogether is not exactly in the spirit of WP:SUMMARY. -- Jao (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jao. There should be a paragraph or two to give the flavour. p.s. Speaking of content forking, History of chess duplicates large amounts of World Chess Championship and should take the same approach for post-approximately-1850. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a paragraph or two about the history, with a link to the main article (as in some other secitons). Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the summary for now. Since we have a separate article on the history, we can probably save some space and cut it down to the essentials (a few paragraphs) and direct readers to read another article if they want more history, but even the main article should have a quick summary. A too long summary is better than having no summary whatsoever; the former is useful to the reader, the latter is not. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Only if people don't know how to click links. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some people who print our articles out on paper. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

← I have shortened the summary. If not watched for, there is the tendency for a stub-and-link to enlarge into a big content forking. That happened with Berlin versus History of Berlin. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OTOH there is Summary style. Bubba73 (talk), 15:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthony, I am really sorry, but I had to revert your change for a second time. While I readily welcome your idea of shortening the History section, "Chess" is a featured article that shall not be extensively changed just in a minute. I suggest we discuss the alternative text you propose on the Talk page before implementation. Here is your proposal for the History section:


 * Chess originated in India during the Gupta Empire,[13] where its early form in the 6th century was known as caturaṅga, which translates as "having 4 limbs", i.e. "an army of 4 parts" – infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariotry, represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively. In Sassanid Persia around 600 the name became shatranj and the rules were developed further. Shatranj was taken up by the Muslim world after the Islamic conquest of Persia, with the pieces largely retaining their Persian names. In Spanish "shatranj" was rendered as ajedrez, in Portuguese as xadrez, and in Greek as zatrikion, but in the rest of Europe it was replaced by versions of the Persian shāh ("king").


 * Chess reached Western Europe and Russia by at least three routes, the earliest being in the 9th century. By the year 1000 it had spread throughout Europe.[14]


 * Around 1200, the rules of chess started to change, mostly by adding special first moves for some pieces to let opposing pieces come into contact sooner, culminating between 1475 and 1500 in the modern moves of Queen and Bishop.


 * Writings about the theory of how to play chess began to appear in the 15th century. As the 19th century progressed, chess organization developed quickly. Many chess clubs, chess books and chess journals appeared. The first modern chess tournament was held in London in 1851.


 * Now can please everyone review this section and give an opinion ? (I will do under short notice) SyG (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is too specific in some places and too general in others. I believe the current history size is acceptable.  Chess has a long and notable history so it is alright for it to take up a large portion of the article.  The sections I find not as important are the Chess Composition, Notation of Recording Moves, Mathematics and Computers, and Psychology.  They do not have as direct relationship to chess the game as chess history. Lyctc (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SyG, I think you were wrong to your revert. (i.e. your re-insertion of duplicated material in "History of Chess"). We had a consensus to do this - 5 editors commented and agreed (me, Jao, Anthony Appleyard, Bubba73, Sjakkalle). Just because an article has been a featured article, it doesn't mean we can never make a major change, especially since we had consensus. Besides, (a) I've seen at least one pretty bad Featured Article, and (b) the article bears almost no resemblance to the version which was featured on May 20 2004 . Peter Ballard (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It should perhaps be pointed out however that the article underwent a FA Review in January 2008 and was kept.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Chess
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Chess's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Murray": From London 1851 chess tournament:  From Shatranj:  From History of chess: A History of Chess, bottom of p.311, by H.J.R.Murray, publ. Oxford at the Clarendon Press. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not sure what this bot was trying to achieve, but I have fixed the Murray reference, I hope. SyG (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A few suggestions
1."Chess is a recreational and ..." - I suggest referencing to the value of "recreation" in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational

2."between two players. Sometimes called Western chess" - I suggest replacing the "." with a ","

3."and other chess variants, the current form" I suggest replacing the "," with a "."

4. "At the start, each player (one controlling the white pieces, the other controlling the black pieces) controls sixteen pieces: " - I suggest replacing the text " controls sixteen pieces" with "occupies sixteen squares with pieces" because the word "control" is used for different meanings in the same sentence.

Anyone objects? Sonoluminesence (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. You mean a link to recreation (and then probably a link to competition as well)? I don't think that's necessary. We're just using it as an English word here, nothing deeper to it. — 2. and 3. Disagree. I feel that the "Sometimes called..." clause is more closely tied to what follows it than to what precedes it. — 4. I don't see how it's used for different meanings, but I can see how the repetition of the word is slightly disturbing. I personally don't mind the current wording but wouldn't oppose yours either. — JAO • T • C 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, "competition" doesn't appear as rarely as "recreational"... [re-edited] - well it appears "fun" also redirects to that article so it really does seems unnecessary. Sonoluminesence (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest to replace "(one controlling the white pieces, the other controlling the black pieces)" by "(one having the white pieces, the other the black pieces)". SyG (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Eurocentric Jealousy
Dont take away the credit from India..The first line should explicitly state it orginated from India..you dont credit the copiers first before the inventors. No place for Eurocentric people here..wont be tolerated.given a chance they will say the universe originated from europe..basically steal all the ideas from the Asia and rebrand them as their own..you cant copy stuff forever..India and China are coming to haul up your asses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhrabhoja (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 February, 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that this is exactly what was discussed in the Question here section above. The bottom line is that there is nothing in the English language implying that words appearing early in a sentence are more important than words appearing later. The lead already clearly states that the Indian and Persian chess variants are much older than the European one. — JAO • T • C 08:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * nobody calls chess western chess..i have been playing chess for 25 years...member of uscf..that will be deleted..dont vandalize the article

I know Europeans are sulking for not inventing chess themselves. But dont please go around and start using Western chess and all other non-exitent titles. There is only one game chess, invented in India, period. If you have problems with that, keep it to yourself. Hope this answers all the questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhrabhoja (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be the lamest edit war I've ever seen. What are you talking about!? Who said chess was invented in Europe!? Oh, that's right - no one! In fact it says in the lead that the game originated in India! The article already says exactly what you're saying - what poossible problem could you have with it? Please don't reinstate that incredibly poor IP edit again. faithless   (speak)  01:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please leave any racist feelings you have at the door. They are unhelpful and no one here is interested. faithless   (speak)  01:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh! now you are getting all angry for me pointing out the obvious eurocentrism. By showing your frustration here you have made your intentions very clear. And please dont add Western chess..nobody uses it. The lead article itself is incredibly poor and my edit is the apt one. Please dont revert it.

And finally, I suggest you to leave your Eurocentric and racist feelings in your closet. A whole lot of people are not interested and frustrated with the incorrect tone of the article. Thanks Andhrabhoja (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Chess as we know it today didn't originate in India. Only the move of the knight and the rook are the same (ignoring castling for the moment).  The moves of the king, queen, bishop, and pawn are different.  Many other rules are different too.  The predecessor of chess as we know it came from India.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)