Talk:Chess piece

Article scope, redundancy and possible merging
Is this article about chess (i.e. how the pieces move, their history etc), or is it about physical chess pieces? Because it shouldn't be about both. Many people have an aesthetic interest in chess piece designs, craftsmanship etc and may collect chess sets without knowing much about the game. On the other hand chess players may have little or no interest in Staunton vs Dubrovnik vs Barleycorn etc. They are not really the same topic and should not be in the same article.

I also think there is a lot of redundancy in our coverage and some of the articles should be merged and consolidated. If it's to be about how the pieces move and other chessy stuff, isn't that already covered in rules of chess? If it's to be about the physical object, maybe this and the articles chess set, chess box, chess clock, chess board and chess equipment should all be merged into a single chess equipment article? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

eidt: I think it was here, way back in 2005, that the article started to take a wrong turn. It was conceived as an article about the physical object, then someone added the moves, when a simple wikilink to rules of chess would have sufficed. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. It's a poor plan to have two independent article secs that cover 90% the same content (i.e. move rules). (I think only en passant isn't covered in this article.) Major surgery needed!? I've tagged the Chess pieces sec. Your merge suggestion also seems good/sensible. --IHTS (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The moves are redundant with the rules article and the relative value is redundant with that article. But the rest of it isn't elsewhere.  Those two sections could be shortened.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is redundancy. All that needs to be said is that different piece types have different moves, and then we can throw in a link to rules of chess, which describes these moves. Value can likewise be disposed of in one sentence, probably when explaining why "losing a piece" always refers to a minor piece. Double sharp (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The "Moves of the pieces" section provides WP:Summary style detail on the basic way the pieces move, and surely any article covering the "chess piece" topic has to have that basic information in it. The link from the top of tha section to rules of chess is a good one, since that article provides a lot more detail on the various types of move etc, but it is not correct that it should replace the section altogether. The summary style principle is that every article should be basically complete itself, with a level of detail appropriate to that article, less than what is in the main article. If there are aspects missing from one or other page that are necessary for understanding that topic, then those should be added, but a split-and-remove operation from this article would not be appropriate, the level of detail is correct as is. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree that this article should describe the moves of the pieces. There is no obvious connection between the other topics of the article, e.g. names and shapes of the pieces, and the rules of the game.  The "Moves of the pieces" and "Relative value" sections should consist of, at most, a single sentence giving a wikilink to Chess.
 * There is a noticeable subculture of people who collect chess sets and care about what they look like and how they relate to each other and to the rest of the world. I was not sure how much of this is reflected in reliable sources, so I did a quick Google search and came up with this.  There is undoubtedly more out there, but I'm not an expert.  My understanding is that most of the people who are interested in chess sets are relatively uninterested in chess as a game; whereas, "serious" chess players are largely uninterested in chess sets, and are even happy to follow games on their computer screens or discuss games with each other without sight of a board.
 * I have to apologize for the length of time that this discussion has been sitting in this talk page, without any of us regular editors of chess articles doing anything about it. I will try to get around to it some time soon.  Bruce leverett (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply, and certainly that's an interesting angle on what this article is about, but it sounds to me like the topic you're describing is covered by the article at Chess set - that would be the place to discuss chess sets as collector's items and assets, and historical interest. So perhaps there is a case for merging out that material, in particular the "Chess sets" and the "Historical illustration" sections, which exceed the current stub content of chess set. But if we are to have a dedicated "chess piece" article, that should discuss pieces in the context of the modern game, and it's not just the section we're discussing which does that, it's also "Number of pieces", "Moves of the pieces" and "Relative value". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chess set is currently a stub and Chess piece is not. I suppose that if someone comes along with the time and inclination to write a real article (or more) about chess sets/pieces as art, they might want to reorganize things, but for the time being, I would leave things alone.
 * You have said a couple of times that Chess piece "should" discuss pieces in the context of the modern game. Where are you coming from?  What does "should" mean here?  There are fairly substantial articles about the modern game, and in particular Chess and Rules of chess already cover (in an overlapping way) the rules, with an assist from History of chess.  How much redundancy do we really need?  Bruce leverett (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to say that on this particular issue I disagree completely with Max and Bruce. An edit summary returning the split template said "there's a serious question as to whether this article should be about the physical object (chess piece) or how the pieces move."  Edit summaries are necessarily abbreviated, but I don't think that's an accurate description of the question.  No one has suggested that this article shouldn't describe the physical objects.  The only question is whether it should also include a brief description of the moves of the pieces.  I think it should.  The brief description of the moves was added to the article in 2005 and remained basically unmolested for 15 years until it was ripped out today.  The idea that the physical objects is the sole topic worthy of discussion here makes no sense to me.  Wikipedia is not paper, and articles can and should cover their topics in multiple dimensions.  The redundancy argument also makes no sense to me.  Off the top of my head, I think the movement of the chess pieces is described in the articles chess, rules of chess, each of the six articles on chessmen (king (chess), queen (chess), rook (chess), bishop (chess), knight (chess) and pawn (chess)), and for 15 years it was described briefly in this article as well.  If redundancy is actually a terrible crime then all those other articles should simply refer to rules of chess as well.  Since the movement of the pieces is only a small part of the rules of chess, sending the reader to a large article for one paragraph of important information that they could get locally seems unnecessary to me.  I might feel differently if there were other factors at play, for example if the piece moves required a long explanation or if the information was subject to change and required frequent updates in multiple places to stay current then recording this in only one place would be a benefit.  But the section did not require maintenance and really didn't need any editing at all until the recent-ish effort to obliterate it.  Quale (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK that action was a bit rash. How about we restore it to the previous stable version, tag and all? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Currently we have the absurd situation where we have a supposedly top importance, level 5 vital article, and we can't even agree on what it should be about. Make it about how pieces move, their value and other chessy stuff if you want; in that case move the stuff about chess piece design and history to chess set. The "B" rating is rather generous for this dog's breakfast of an article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that it is 17th on our list of the most popular chess articles. This surprised me, and reminded me that we should move carefully.  Apparently an average of 1,550 people a day typed or pasted "chess piece" in their search box.  What were they looking for?  Did they find it?


 * It does seem to be rather disorganized, and the choices of topics look like a series of historical accidents.


 * The section, "Number of pieces", should have a better title. Only the first sentence gives the number of pieces.  But if this article is so frequently accessed, most of the accesses must be by non-chess-players, and many of them might just be there to look up the name of a piece, or the diagrams, and so on.  So this might be a particularly important section.


 * The whole section, "Chess sets", seems to be misplaced here, and to belong to the article Chess set. Or does it?  Logic is not necessarily the best guide.  If someone types "chess piece" in the search box, could he be trying to remember the name "Staunton" to describe the design?  Part of this section is a guide to what to look for in buying a chess set.  Should we put that stuff in Chess set and link to it from here?


 * The subsections, "Pocket and travel sets" and "Computer images", don't look very meaningful. (By the way, no one uses pocket and travel sets any more; it's all on their cell phones.)


 * The section, "Relative value", seems to be directed more toward chess players. Would a non-chess-player come here for this information?


 * The section, "Historical illustration", looks very random. Just one illustration?  And why is it significant?


 * The section, "Piece names", is spectacular. Probably editors have spent more time contributing to it than readers have spent using it to look up piece names in other languages.  Kind of like the list of foreign-language editions of My 60 Memorable Games that I worked on some time ago, only much more so.


 * Just some thoughts. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support maintaining the chess-related content and moving the aesthetics/craftsmanship/historical content to chess set. Note that the "piece names" section is a template and is used in other articles within the project. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Moving the "chess set" section to chess set seems like a good idea since the chess set article is pretty skimpy, after many years. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Chess set is peripherally related to Chess diagram which I have recently eviscerated edited. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus - Do we have consensus that stuff about styles of chess sets etc should be moved to chess set and that this article should be about chess pieces primarily as they relate to chess rules and strategy? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - Seems like a reasonable idea. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Castling Confusion
In this article it states that the King (when Castling) is the only piece other than the knight that can jump. On the page on Castling it states that the move may only take place if the intervening squares are empty, but historically could involve a "jump". This page should be clarified so as not to mislead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.96.106 (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see where it says that the king jumps over another piece when castling, although it does say that a piece jumps over another when castling. The king should be moved first and then the rook jumps over the king, in a manner of speaking.  It does need to be clarified.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I attempt to clarify the situation by making this edit. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong translation of Serbo-Croatian top
It isn't 'tower', it's 'cannon'. However, I don't understand how I can edit the table - it seems to be linked to a Wiktionary table, which, however, doesn't include translations.--82.137.115.143 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found it.--82.137.115.143 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Bulgarian King Piece
In the Bulgarian language, the word "czar" means emperor. The etymology is quite clear, deriving from Caesar. Only in a very colloquial context does it get conflated with king. PametUGlavu (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The table of chess piece names to which you are referring is retrieved from "Wiktionary", whatever and wherever that is. I do not know how to edit it.  Bruce leverett (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the word "Tsar" is pretty well-established as a loanword in English, so I guess we could replace "King" with "Tsar/Emperor"? I'll have a go at editing the table, and, if successful, I'll keep the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.116.208 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited the template and it back-propagated. I decided to just go with "emperor" rather than use some transliterations, it just got cluttered with three for the same thing. I saved the final edit at the template. 77.85.116.208 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * PametUGlavu, you're welcome to edit it, of course 77.85.116.208 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)