Talk:Rules of chess/Archive 1

Alternate moves
when chess books discuss alternate moves of competition games, did the players really try out all the variations during competition?


 * During competition it is fobidden to move pieces for analysing the game. So players do this only in their mind, not really moving the pieces on the board. Andreas Kaufmann 08:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact these sequences are generally written by the authors of the chess books, without asking the players what they were thinking at all. DanielCristofani 12:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

when trading is used

White's advantage
[http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1302 When top-20 humans play against each other, it's worth about 50 rating points to be White. When they play against a computer, it's only worth half as much to be White.] Is this accurate?


 * The article states "this gives white an advantage of approximately 5% in tournament play". This statistic needs to be clarified, because it could mean a score of 0.55 to 0.45 on average, or a score of 0.525 to 0.475 on average.  The latter is what a 5% advantage would mean to me, but IIRC, the former is actually the true advantage of playing white. --Fritzlein 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is about 55% to 45%. Using onmy the 1. e4 and 1. d4 games at chess games explorer] I get 54.9% score for white.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Could someone explain to a casual player what exactly is meant by a "score of 55%" (in terms of win/lose/draw)? --Slashme 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's say your probability to win, draw, and lose are W, D, and L respectively. By definition W + D + L = 1.  Your expected score is then W + D/2.  The interesting thing, if I recall correctly, is that White's expected score is about 0.55 when two beginners of equal ability play, and also about 0.55 when two grandmasters of equal ability play.  For the beginners you might have W=55%, D=0%, and L=45%, whereas for the grandmasters you might have W=30%, D=50%, L=20%, but in either case the expected score (W + D/2) for white is 0.55.


 * By my way of figuring, since W - L = 10% at all levels, then we should say White wins 10% more than Black, or else we should explain what we mean by an expected score of 0.55. --Fritzlein 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I get it now. Thanks. I have modified the article in a way that I understand. Hope that works for the other novices as well ;-) --Slashme 13:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

50 Move Rule
If fifty moves have been played by each player without a piece being taken or a pawn moved (in tournament play, some situations are extended to one hundred moves).

I´m quite confident that this was abandond a few years ago. --Vulture


 * which was abandoned, the fifty move rule, or the hundred move rule? If you're confident, why not amend the text to say that X rule applied for a (insert approximate period of time), but the rule was changed to Y in (approximate time frame). --Wesley


 * See the official rules linked from the article, specifically rule 5.2e. I don't know that there ever was a hundred move rule; the person claiming this should cite a source.  What there used to be was a provision that allowed an extension where it could be demonstrated that a forced mate would take longer.  This is theoretically possible with some minor piece endings, but those who find themselves in such a situation during a game are unlikely to have the skill needed to demonstrate a forced mate.  The practical application of the rule comes in games involving inexperienced players who have great difficulty concluding a game, and even then they have great difficulty in maintaining the score sheet which would prove that 50 moves have passed.  In my experience as arbiter in children's tournaments, I can count on someone raising the rule at least once in every tournament in a situation where it is not applicable at all. Eclecticology

Back when I was an active USCF player, there was an addendum to the 50-move rule published by the USCF explicitly laying out one specific set of conditions under which 100 moves would be allowed: it was for certain Knight-vs-Pawn endings, laid out in great detail in the addendum. I still have it in my paper copy of the rulebook. If Vaulture says it was abandoned, and you can't find it in the present rules, I have no doubt that it was in fact abandoned. I was not able to find any information about exactly when that happened, or why. --Lee Daniel Crocker

Here is my understanding: The original theory behind the fifty-move rule was that pawnless endgames (e.g. KBN vs K) take less than fifty moves to win if you know what you are doing. If you don't know what you are doing, you don't get to prolong the game indefinitely just because you know there is a win there somewhere.

When computers started to do retrograde analysis, they discovered pawnless situations where the distance to mate was greater than fifty moves, and situations involving pawns where the stronger side had a win, but optimal play from both sides went more than fifty moves without a pawn advance. Therefore the rules were changed to give the stronger side a chance to convert those endgames by allowing one hundred moves in some situations.

The rapid proliferation of endgame tablebases uncovered more and more "exceptions" to the fifty-move rule, and even some cases where more than one hundred moves were necessary to convert. (Apparently 243 moves to conversion (262 to mate) is the current record. See .)  Tournament organizers saw the complexity of the draw rules spinning out of control, and perhaps even requiring a computer to say whether someone was eligible to claim a draw or not. In face of looming rule insanity, the original fifty-move rule was restored. In theoretical cases where there is a win on the board that takes more than fifty moves to convert, it's just too bad for the stronger side.

--Fritzlein


 * At one time the 50 move rule was extended to 100 moves for certain endgames, but as more and more such endgames weere found, the rule (wisely) went back to 50 moves. Not all of them were pawnless.  One was 2N vs P, which can require up to 66 moves with best play.  This and two others were listed in FIDE rules around 1960.  The other two were: K+R+B vs K+R and K+R+RP on its original square vs K+P blocking the other pawn + B on opposite color as opponent's pawn.  Bubba73 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * PS My daughter had the 2N vs P endgame in a tourment last spring, but the game was drawn. Bubba73 (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Separate from [chess]
Is there a particular reason why this is separated from the Chess article? -- Zoe
 * The chess article would be too long, and maybe not provide as good overview as it does now. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 10:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "Official Rules of Chess"? –Floorsheim 08:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * We would run into problems like 'official according to whom?' etc. Let's stay adaptive. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 10:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I thought there was some sort of international convention. Maybe we could reference that. My concern is that the rules listed seem too constrictive. Of the many times I've played chess, for example, I've never played it in such a way that if you touch a piece you have to move it. It seems as though if we don't reference an international convention, we'll have to go into detail about variations on the rules. –Floorsheim 00:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Insufficient material
The bracketed list of material sufficient to checkmate in the Timing section seems flawed to me. It is perfectly possible to checkmate with only two Knights against a hasted defence, so it shouldn't be an draw if the defender runs out of time, should it? (And it is of course also possible to checkmate with only one Knight if the defender has a few ill-placed pieces in the King's way...) -- Jao 15:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * With King + 2 knights versus a king, checkmate cannot be forced. You can have a position like White: Kh6, Ne4, Nf4, Black: Kg8.  Now white moves Nf6+.  Blank has to move Kh8 to get mated, whereas either Kf7 or Kf8 avoids the mate in one. With the other situation, there probably isn't a forced mate.  Bubba73 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That section wasn't quite right - it is really whether or not checmate is possble, not the material. Insufficient material is one way that checkmate is impossible.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Castling
In contrast to FIDE, the USCF no longer requires the king to be touched first in castling. Touching the rook first is OK if the player "intends to castle". I can't get them to clarify how you know that a person "intends to castle" if, say, he moves his rook and then reaches for the king, but doesn't touch it and draws his hand away. Is that "intent to castle"? They also won't clarify what happens if the player moves the rook and doesn't immediately move the king. They won't say if he is committed to a rook move, commited to castling, or what. They also don't say what happens if the player moves the rook then the other player moves or starts to move and then the first player says that he was intending to castle. Bubba73 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've got some more information on this. The USCF rules still state that the king is to be touched before the rook, or they can both be touched at the same time. What has changed in the USCF rule is that the normal rule was that if the rook was touched first, a rook move had to me made instead of castling. Now the player can castle after touching the rook, but is subject to a warning the first time.  After that time, the penalty is up to the director.  (If you move the king two squares and take your hand off it, you are committed to castling, if it is legal).  Bubba73 (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Random notes on recent tweaks.
-I don't think the "convenient practice" is common enough or useful enough to include.

-"white wins 10% more games" would mean that white wins 110% as many games as black wins. Using the numbers from "chess games explorer" with white starting with e4 or d4, I get white winning 136% as many games as black wins, or better than 4 to 3. Besides, this is "original research", and besides that it probably doesn't belong in an article about rules anyway.

-I don't think we want to suggest that there's consensus about what happens in chess with perfect play. It's really not known and it may well never be.

-I thought it worth explaining castling and en passant in this article. I tried to be brief. Took out some of the tournament-related detail about castling though--I think it's a bit much. Obviously if people disagree they can put it back.

-Added resignation, which was missing.

DanielCristofani 14:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something (and I am new to contributing to Wikipedia), but what was the purpose of 70.172.215.105's change to the Draws section adding the note about Kings giving check to each other? I suppose some variant might make that reasonable, but it seems bogus to me.

JTamplin 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't make sense, I don't know why it was added, and I've just reverted it. DanielCristofani 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Colours
The actual colors of chess sets are usually white and black, cream and brown, red and black, or buff and green; but the pieces and squares are always referred to as "white" and "black". -- Now I've seen white and red or cream and red, but never black and red. Is this an error, or just me? Also, it is worth mentioning that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red (as they are in Through the Looking-Glass)? 213.249.135.36 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this is an error, possibly confusing colors of the pieces with colors of the board. There will never be a black and red set unless it is a really cheap toy.  Similarly, boards are commonly buff and green, but I've never seen a green set.  You can change that, or I will.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the starting position wrong?
Maybe it's the fact that it's 5:30am, but the starting position for chess looks incorrect to me. As the old adage states (mentioned in this article), queen on colour and white on right -- of course this does not jive with the layout displayed which clearly has the queens on the opposite colour (as well as the kings). I'm almost positive this is wrong and I'm wondering why it's gone unnoticed... maybe lack of sleep is making me miss something. Professor Ninja 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, it was the sleep talking. I got the representations of the king and queen backwards. No wonder it didn't look right to me. Professor Ninja 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Article title
The Rules of chess were redesignated the Laws of chess quite some time ago. May I have views, please, on retitling the article accordingly. BlueValour 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your request for opinions deserves a response, even if an extremely belated one. I'm neutral, and would be satisfied to have the article at either title.  If nothing else we should certainly create a redirect from Laws of chess.  I would do it now, but it would make the page move harder, should we choose to do it. Quale 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a stong opinion, except that I think a person would more likely type in "rules of chess" or "chess rules" than "laws". anyhow, it may be a moot point soon.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT
Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is essentially all this article is.--Crossmr 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it might have been viewed as that when you listed it for deletion, but it isn't anymore....193.128.87.36 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DN
The article says "To describe moves and locations on the board, either algebraic chess notation or the almost obsolete descriptive chess notation is used." In my mind, DN is obsolete, and almost extinct. should that be changed? Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would concur with (completely) "obsolete", but I note that in my club, there are three regulars (out of about forty) who still use it. So I would hesitate to call it extinct.  Note, "almost obsolete" seems to smack of the same imprecision that "very unique" has.  What does "almost" accomplish?  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is obsolete, "almost" doesn't need to be there.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I took out "almost" before "obsolete". AFAIK, the last publication to use DN was Chess Life, and they only used it a little in the late 1980s or perhaps early 1990s.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"advanced rules" and "controversy" sections
Do the "advanced rules" and "controversy" sections still need to be here? I think they are a direct copy from fifty move rule, and that article is linked in the main body (under "Draws") and also in the list of articles about specific rules near the end. Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like duplication, so I would say merge anything to the relevant subpages (and as you say, probably nothing to merge) and remove them. Quale 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry that was my fault. I was annoyed at the deletion argument and added those sections as cut-and-pastes to show that this page could be more than an instruction manual.  But they don't really belong here, which is why they were seperate articles in the first place. Chop them out, reword them, merge them, whatever you want really.  They were only there to appease the deletion argument 193.128.87.36 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I unserstand. I took them out a few days ago.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

table of diagrams at Movement section
I recently tried to shrink the table of six diagrams illustrating piece movements. My desire was to allow more space on the left side of the page for the text to wrap through--the gap was quite narrow. While I was able to shorten the captions without losing much, the table still has a lot of dead space. It appears that the diagram template itself inserts a good deal of space around itself although reading its code I cannot demonstrate that to myself. Neither can I make alignment changes which allows for more horizontal space (although I did vertically top-justify the diagrams, which looks better).

Now I like the idea of having the six illustrations all together. But its impact on the text flow is something I am not satisfied with. I am not a table markup or html formatting guru and would like to ask for some feedback as to whether there is an easy way to lay out the diagrams in a lot less horizontal space. We could even revisit putting all six in one table, although to me that seems like a Plan B.

Oh, and feel free to revert my table edit; the only tangible improvement was the vertical justification which can easily be specifically readded. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit
Concerning the recent edit and revert about moving the king and then touching the the rook - the revert (edit comment "Touching a rook AFTER making the king part of a castling is immaterial, as the corresponding rook move MUST be made anyway") is correct. FIDE rule 4.6 and USCF rule 9C state that after the king has been released on a square two squares over, the player is committed to castling that way, if it is legal. Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

reworded goal in intro
A heads up: I tried to improve the wording of the goal in the intro. By using the word "inevitable" I hoped to avoid the necessity of explaining that the king doesn't actually get captured (I moved that into the body). I also trimmed out reference to protecting one's own king from this; I felt the symmetry of the game made this idea clear enough so that the intro would read better if omitted. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Piece" distinction
In the Setup section, there is a short paragraph on the usage of the term "piece", as well as "(chess)man". No qualms with the content (although I don't usually prefer the imperative voice "Note that..." in a WP article), but I think there is some ambiguity that needs addressing. Note that (sorry) the chart immediately above that paragraph enumerates the players' pieces, yet includes pawns in this enumeration, in apparent contradiction to the usage described for the term piece!

I think there are two usages of piece being confounded here. First is the physical entity that comes in the box when you buy a chess set, of which there are 32, usually wood, etc., etc. The other refers to the abstract entity which forms part of the players' assets of the game, which move in various ways, can capture, etc., etc. I think the enumeration of the set uses the first meaning, and the terminology usage describes the second.

If so, it would help to clarify this in the article. I am not going to dive in now, but may very well later if no one does so first. Please reply with any feedback, esp. if anyone thinks I am misunderstanding the issues here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that "Note that in chess terminology, the pawn is often not called a 'piece'; with this usage, it would be said that each player has eight pieces and eight pawns. The terms 'man' or 'chessman' may be used to mean a piece or pawn." should be removed because it is a bit of terminology that really has nothing to do with the rules, which is the topic of this article. I think it could be confusing to have it there.  Every other use of "piece" in the article (and there are many) use it in the sense of including pawns. Bubba73 (talk), 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Actually, there is quite a bit of similar descriptive but non rules-related text (white squared bshops, e.g.) here.  I may start pruning...gently.  Baccyak4H (Yak!)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed "Chess tables (either of wood or stone) are sometimes made with a chess board designed into the surface. Sometimes human chess boards are drawn on the floor or ground. Many travel boards fold into a box that the pieces fit into and some of them use magnets to hold the pieces in place." because it doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It might go in some other article.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Missed that one. ;-)   Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Noise
I can't see anything in this article about noise. No mention of mobile phones ringing etc see Ruslan Ponomariov. Something to add. ChessCreator (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is illegal to distract the opponent, etc. That isn't mentioned in the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There probably needs to be a section on conduct/behavior/ethics, and it could go there. Bubba73 (talk), 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added a section on Conduct. Bubba73 (talk), 03:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

automated peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.


 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] ✅


 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4mm, use 4 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4&amp;nbsp;mm.[?] ✅


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?] ✅


 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Summary style.[?]

**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] ✅
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * correctly


 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”


 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] ✅

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Bubba73 (talk), 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]


 * Items not "done":


 * infobox - there is one for pieces, but otherwise I don't know a good one to add
 * Table of Contents may be too long - I think it is OK
 * redundancy - I eliminated some. There may be a little left.
 * copyediting - I've done a lot of this, but more could probably be done. I've read it and read it until I'm getting sick of it.  I try to forget what I know and read it like I'm reading it for the first time, but I'm to the point where I'm tired of doing that.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article criteria
Good article criteria Bubba73 (talk), 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still tweaking the article, but here are the criteria for a GA, with my comments in italics:

1. Well written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.


 *  I believe so. Please fix anything that is wrong.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
 * (c) it contains no original research.


 * I think it is referenced well. The only thing that might be considered O.R. are the diagrams showing the moves of the pieces.  AFAIK, they didn't come directly from any of the references.

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * I think so.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * No problems with neutrality.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * There is nothing like that, but from time to time there are edits which are either vandalism or an edit by someone with a mistaken idea about a rule.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Plenty of diagrams and a few appropriate images. No copyright or fair use issues. Bubba73 (talk), 17:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

structure
I considered changing the structure under Movement to this:

The reason is that each of these have their own main article. However, I haven't done it since that would make the section on most pieces very short. Does anyone have a suggestion of changing it *or leaving it as it is or using this structure)? Bubba73 (talk), 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Movement
 * King
 * Castling
 * Rook
 * Bishop
 * Queen
 * Knight
 * Pawn
 * en passant
 * promotion
 * Check


 * An alternative is to basically keep the current structure, but make subsections for en passsant and promotion the way there is one for castling now, i.e.


 * Movement (cover the basic moves of the pieces)
 * Castling
 * en passant
 * promotion
 * Check

or
 * Movement (cover the basic moves of the pieces)
 * Special moves (little or no text)
 * Castling
 * en passant
 * promotion
 * Check Bubba73 (talk), 03:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would favour your last proposal, that has the advantage not to overload the "movement" section for the pawn. I will also help to expand the sections on "en passant" and on "promotion". SyG (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit dry
Not everyone is interested in competition and I see no reason why mention that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red, as they are in Through the Looking-Glass, cannot be included. It's interesting. Also mention of large marked out boards with people as players, areas provided for chess in some parks in America and even Wizards chess in Harry Potter. Obviously just a very brief mention and not too much but it's an encycolpedia entry not just an instruction manual. JMO. Mimi (yack) 17:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these suggestions. I do not fully understand, however, what parks in America or Harry Potter have to do with "Rules of chess". It seems to me these mentions would be better placed in other articles, like "Chess" or "Places where chess is played" or something else. SyG (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is about the rules of chess. I don't know of any time that the sides were white and red, although some sets are red.  Anyhow, that isn't in the rules of chess.  'Large marked out boards", "parks in America", ahd Harry Potter have nothing to do with the rules of chess.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And even when the physical pieces are red, they are still called "black". Bubba73 (talk), 23:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fidelogo.jpg
The image Image:Fidelogo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Images
I just wondered if some images in say, the lead and equipment sections could be switched for others? At the moment, the article looks like a repeat of the Chess page and maybe that's what the editor above meant when he said "A bit dry" and wanted to inject a bit of Alice in Wonderland (inappropriate though his suggestion was). I suppose a page on the rules is never going to be exciting, but maybe some fresh images might help? Any thoughts? Brittle heaven (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just googled and the best I got was this, but it would lead to copyright hassles and claims that it's "unencyclopedic".
 * I checked Through the Looking Glass and it has no chess-related images - and I don't see what images from that book would have to do with the rules. -- Philcha (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but I just meant choose some others from Wiki Commons. There are quite a few there, many unused in our en.wiki articles. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the least stereotyped image I could see at commons. -- Philcha (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't particularly like the image in the lead. It is used in several places I think.  In the equipment section, the one of the board and clock - I think there are a couple of other similar ones that could be used.  As far as the 1849 Staunton pieces, I think this is the only photo of the actual 1849 Jaques/Cook/Satunton pieces.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What about this one for the lead section? Bubba73 (talk), 15:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Some other candidates ...

And maybe for later in the article, a checkmate image like this one by a fellow called Bubba73, whoever he is ... Brittle heaven (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the one on the left tells a story - a group of ordinary people of various ages, enjoying a game but taking it seriously, even using a clock. The biggest disadvantage of b/w is that details are less clear at thumbnail size, but it works for me at 250px width, which is the same as the current lead image. -- Philcha (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit the shocking scene of regicide has impact too. -- Philcha (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as Brittle heavens choices, #1 - to dark and not sharp enough, #2 bad angle, #3 - not as good as the one we have, #4 - non-standard pieces, and this is about the rules. As far as the checkmate one, it is used in checkmate and I made it to replace another photo that several people didn't like because it had the king on its side after checkmate, as if resigning after being checkmated.  And I like this B&W one better than the one at the pool because it is thigher on the chessboard and doesn't include as many supurflous people.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to leave it to those who have contributed to the article. Some good options there hopefully and another shot of a board and clock somewhere, if you want to use it. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention—in the 'chess diagram' section of Commons, there are also some animations of promotion, en passant etc, if they're any use. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put the Kiev public park pic in the article for now.
 * For more alternatives, Commons (chess tournament) has some, of which I like Gelfand. -- Philcha (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility of fractions
The section Equipment contains fractions like ¾ or ⅜ that I personally find very hard to read. That is contrary to the spirit of WP:ACCESS, especially for persons with visual disabilities. On the other hand, changing these fractions to full numbers like 0.75 would distort the citation and be less elegant (especially for 3/8). So I would like your opinion ! SyG (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Accessibility issues aside for a moment, the source does give them in those fractions. Secondly, using 3.375 instead of 3⅜ seems to imply too exact of a number.  Is a king 3.375 inches tall OK but one 3.374 inches tall not allowed?


 * As far as accessibility, there is an alternative, $p/q$ for $p/q$ and $N p/q$ for $N p/q$, e.g. $3 3/8$ versus 3⅜.  Maybe that would be better.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a no-win situation. The $p/q$ approach is better for people with poor but not "disabled" eyesight, like me. OTOH for those who are actually or virtually blind and have to use screen-readers it's a nightmare, as e.g. $3 3/8$ generates the following (X)HTML:
 * 3+ 3 ⁄ 8
 * which is not the value of the fraction but (X)HTML code for a visual representation of the value, and absolute gobbledygook when spoken.
 * A good solution might be to create a template that uses $p/q$ to generate a more legible visible represention but also includes a (X)HTML  attribute that includes the actual value, as IIRC the W3C Accessibility recommendation is that screen-readers should speak the content of   attributes. -- Philcha (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to do that. Of course, there is the 3-3/8, but I don't like to see that.  Bubba73 (talk), 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I have used the template mentioned by Bubba73. It is a bit ugly but more accessible. SyG (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call, SyG! See Wikipedia_talk:Accessibility -- Philcha (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooops! I had completely forgotten about your important objection (I should have re-read the thread)! Kudos to you for having raised the issue on the Talk page ! SyG (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay
Most dictionaries don't list "gameplay" as a word. The New Oxford American Dictionary does, but the only definition is "the tactical aspects of a computer game". If so, then "gameplay" is being used incorrectly. Bubba73 (talk), 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Div col
Regarding this edit, is div col really a better way of doing columns? From a structural standpoint, of course divs are better than a table for this, but the template does break the columnness completely on half of my Windows browsers (Opera and IE7; works fine with Firefox and Chrome). Not that having all the see alsos in one column is a big deal, but it wasn't intended, was it? — JAO • T • C 11:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought it was better. Before I made that change the See Also articles were in two columns, using a different system where you have to tell it where to break the columns.  This system is more dynamic, you don't have to change where you break the columns if items are added or deleted.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "articles about rules" uses the other method. When I made the change, I was using Firefox and it worked just as it should for me.  But in IE8 RC1, the new method does not break it into two columns.  Bubba73 (talk), 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it back, so it would work with IE8. Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy in castling description
Sorry, I don't know much about chess so I might be wrong but the description of castling seems redundant to me. If the king and the rook have not moved yet wouldn't they always be on the same rank? Could the fourth be removed to make the definition more concise?77.99.151.39 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I just read that pawns can be promoted to rooks. Ignore this question.77.99.151.39 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

En passant
This section is currently looking quite odd, with a diagram and quite a lot(in diagram terms) of text below a little wording besides and a in your face white gap. Suggest the Spanish made diagram is used. Along side e.p can be explained. SunCreator (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * SupportI only learnt chess a few weeks ago, and actually learnt en passant from this page. That diagram is far clearer, the current one took me a while to work it out.--UltraMagnusspeak 10:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I wish the pawns on a5 and b2 weren't there - they could confuse the issue.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
Bubba, you reverted the edits of two guys claiming it was vandalism. Personally, I think that might have been good faith. For some time, I actually thought that not calling check would allow you to capture the king. And isn't it true that if you knock over the king it's considered a loss? Also, someone else made an edit that contained profanity yet it was identified as possible vandalization. What's going on? 98.117.158.220 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 1: not calling check, capture king - This is absurd.
 * 2: Knock over the king a loss - That is absurd.
 * 3: I don't know about the profanity. Some tools tag that as possible profanity.
 * Read the article or any of the rulebooks referenced. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Irregularities and Recording Moves and Timing errors/incomplete
I know that this is to be a worldwide view of the subject, but errors stand out to me.

First, in the subjects of illegal moves and illegal initial positions. FIDE requires a complete retraction for the former and a restart in the latter - correct. In regular USCF play this is true only if the move is discovered the the prior (or first...) ten moves in both cases. (Just & Burg: 23-24, 26.) Since the 5th Edition USCF rulebook is quoted elsewhere in the article, this section should be edited. Even a simple and cited, "Some national bodies have other rules regarding illegal positions."

And where is it written that a draw offer is notated by "="? The only identity/equals sign I know of in Algebraic Notation indicates promotion. (Just & Burg 218.) And where is it written that draw offers should be notated? And again... it's my understanding that in FIDE the move must be made before it is written down - in USCF it may be required but optionally not (not in 5th Edition but rather in rulebook revisions since 5th ed. on USCF's website.)

And again, Timing is not completely correct, as USCF differs significantly in how to claim Insufficient Losing Chances. But oh, well.

Good article, except for the errors and imcompleteness. ;)

I'd edit it myself. But it's under semi-protection, so I can't. 98.228.92.5 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll work on those points soon, or you can get an account and then you can edit a semi-protected article such as this one. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Draw offer fixed. Right, USCF rule is that the move is to be made before writing it, but they allow the director to disregard that.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 03:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Illegal moves and wrong starting position - done. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnote 7 gives the USCF version of the rule about writing the move first but it isn't referenced. The only reference I know is this and you have to be registered to read the webpage, which we don't like for references.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The USCF's "insufficient losing chances" is in footnote 6. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think all of the issues you brought up have been addressed. Thank you for your keen observations, esp. of FIDE/USCF differences.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! You must have this on your Watchlist.  :)  My brain kicked in last night and I realized that whoever contributed the "=" part might have been referring to equality in chess punctuation.  (Though I still don't know how we get to draw offer from there.)  I just found that Algebraic chess notation has the same error.  But I can fix that one.
 * I didn't know the rulebook changes page was members-locked. Actually, I'm logged in as a member right now and it won't give me access to the link you cited (though I see where you got to it from) - might be a broken link?  Wonder if non-members can see http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf, where the changes are also noted.  The only thing is you'd want to note the retrieved date, as that document changes annually with rulebook revisions.  ;)
 * And, actually I am registered. User:LaughingVulcan.  But I keep on forgetting my darn password.  Inconvenient, but not disastrous, thanks to people like you who can remember passwords and will help!  Thanks again!  98.228.92.5 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed algebraic chess notation too. Some Wikipedia pages that are vandalized a lot are "semi-protected", which means that people who have not signed up for an account cannot edit them.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, you are talking about the USCF site. Certain things there are allowed only by people who are registered for the USCF website.  The link to the rules changes is one of them (I don't know why) so I gave the link and then quoted about two sentences.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

where is it written that draw offers should be notated?
Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet., from FIDE LAWS of CHESS, page 11. SunCreator (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Article 8.1, fourth paragraph.


 * "Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet."
 * and Appendix C.13


 * "C.13 The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=)."
 * So maybe it is marked as "(=)" instead of "=".  Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 23:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Timing
Somewhat confused by this wording at the moment, maybe I'm misreading. If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time, but it is then noted that player A is also out of time, then: * If a sudden death control is not being used, the game continues in the next time control (Schiller 2003:23). * if the game is played under a sudden death time control (each player has a fixed amount of time no matter how many moves are played), then if it can be established which player ran out of time first, the game is lost by that player; otherwise the game is drawn (Schiller 2003:29).
 * Currently says on wikipedia:


 * Bubba73 noted in an edit summary when providing references. Parts 6.11 and 10.4 from a FIDE article. I assume from Laws of Chess handbook

6.11 says

6.11 If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first then: a. the game shall continue if it happens in any period of the game except the last period b. the game is drawn if it happens in the period of a game, in which all remaining moves must be completed.

10.4 does not appear to exist.
 * To me these two quoted block above do not mean the same meaning. Are they suppose to? SunCreator (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it. I got 10.4 from Schiller's book, which is basically his rewording of the FIDE rules, which is easier to access and reference.  But maybe FIDE dropped it after the book was printed.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first 'If' line says 'sudden death control' but the second 'sudden death time control'. Now are these thing different or the same? I think both are meant to be 'sudden death time control' and the same. Then in the second instant it explains it in the bracketed part. But why explain it in the second part and not the first? All looks messy wording. SunCreator (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * the first is if it isn't in a sudden death, the second is. The wording about player A, etc, is too much - I'll shorten it.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotion, old queen vs. bishop
Changes were made to the article about promotion concerning the old movements of the queen and bishop, and which was weaker. According to A Short History of Chess (in the references), page 29ff, the old bishop's move was jumping two squares diagonally (it could jump over pieces) and the old queen's movement was moving one square diagonally. It is debatable about which is weaker or stronger - the bishop could jump over pieces and could get across the board faster than the queen, but it could reach only half as many squares as the queen. However, that reference gives the old queen as the weaker piece. Furthermore, on page 59 it talks about promotion. It says that it was like a battlefield promotion when the foot soldier would be promoted to the weakest officer/piece (the queen at the time). So it is debatable about which of the ancient pieces was weaker but I think it is clear that they at least considered the old queen to be the weakest. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So I propose going back to the previous wording, except change it to say that it was considered the weakest piece. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. I think I've seen other references that say the old queen was the weakest piece also. Quale (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

their/his
When we were trying to get this article to Good Article status, we had to replace he/his with non-gender specific terms. Personally I prefer he/his, but the change was needed to get the article to GA. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

FIDE editions of the rules
I have sources for FIDE editions of the rules in 1929, 1952, 1966, 1974, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988, and 1992, but no information about editions since then. Does anyone know? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

reorganize sections
I think it might be a good idea to reorganize the "movement" section. What I propose would be take out the "basic moves" sub-section and replace it with a sub-section (same level) for each of the pieces. Put the diagram(s) for each piece in their respective section. Incorporate castling, en passant, and promotion as sub-sub-sections within the piece sub-sections (king, pawn, and pawn, resp.). What do you think? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This implicitely considers castling is a king move and not a rook move. Well, why not ? Just for curiosity: what is the problem you want to fix with these changes ? SyG (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Castling is considered a king move and not a rook move. For instance, if you touch your king and rook, but castling is illegal, you must move your king (if legal).  Even if you have no legal king move, you are not required to move the rook.  (And the rule is that you touch the king first.)


 * The problems I want to address are layout and the "special moves". Layout: On my screen, the right half is taken up by two columns of diagrams while the text is comprised of short lines on the left.  Special moves: en passant, etc are moves of the pieces.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed structure:
 * Movement (the text from "basic moves" will go here)
 * King
 * Castling
 * Rook
 * Bishop
 * Queen
 * Knight
 * Pawn
 * Promotion
 * En passant Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good for me. SyG (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Time control
You should enumerate the most commonly used timings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srelu (talk • contribs) 14:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea - or at least common or typical ones. Is anyone able to do this?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

check
hey guys! long time chess player and student but I'm still kinda new to wikipedia and I'd like to iron out some of the language in the check section. can someone grant me access? Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you registered at least 4 days ago and made 10 edits, you should be able to edit this page. I think you fit that.  Otherwise, you can get confirmed and edit, see Protection_policy. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * cool beans! I'll look into it! Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a lot of the language in the section on check. I also added two sub sections on forks and pins since the last paragraph on check was a short paragraph about pins. I think the nature of check warrants these two sections on pins and forks (especially since they aren't really discussed anywhere else in length in this article) and I feel they are a major part of strategic checking. Scottdude2000 (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about the rules of chess. Pins and forks are not part of the rules.  There are pin (chess), fork (chess), check (chess), and chess strategy. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * as I addressed below: at the VERY LEAST you have to cover pins. pins are alreayd broached as a topic by the article. and in a section on check one MUST cover the fact that a pinned peice is still a threat to the opposing king even though it can't move. This has to be apart of the rules. to talk about this you have to at least give a cursory mention of what a pin is. I devoted not more than half a paragraph to pins and that is all. it really isn't that big a deal dude! if you hate the forks thing then cut it. I think forks and pins walk kinda hand in hand but if it means that much to you go ahead and kill the forks but you have to leave pins in or else the rules of check section is incomplete! Scottdude2000 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

sections on pins and forks
I don't think the new sections on pins and forks should be in the article. The article is about the rules, and pins and forks are not in the rules. The fact that a piece pinned to the king can't move is covered by the player not being able to make a move that would leave his king in check. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * first let's be clear here: the article already begins to cover pins. the way it's worded right now it comes off as flat out redundant. at this point the last paragraph in the check section may as well be cut because it's already been stated like three times that you cannot make any move which puts you in check. lol it's like ok we get it! you can't move or expose yourself to check. so If pins are already being partially covered then why not fully cover them? also, idk if you read the whole post on pins, but a pinned peice's attack zone must still be considered active when determining the possible dangerous check squares in the next move. this is something I note in the section on pins. as it is to understand that one particular rule of check you have to understand pins which means you need a section properly defining pins which in turn justifies the existence of the pins subsection.


 * No it doesn't. Pin is not in there anywhere except where you added it.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * oh yes it does! "A player may not make any move which places or leaves their king in check, even if the checking piece cannot move due to a pin, i.e. moving it would expose their own king to check. This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave their king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check." this is what was there before I edited. go see for yourself. Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, "attacking" the checking piece is not a way out of check. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * yes attacking the piece is one possible way out of check. I don't know what to say here except that it is. if a knight is threatening my king, my only two possible moves out of check are moving the king or attacking the knight with another piece. I think the Move, Attack, Defend format is just three words that you don't like. I'll grant that there's no official naming schema for the ways to get out of check. But I made this change for readability's sake for the potential new user who doesn't understand the weirdness of the old format. Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No - attacking the checking piece does not get you out of check (capturing it does). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting the edit because no sources give "attack" and "defend" as ways out of check - I think it is misleading. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * how is it misleading?! what crazy image do the words attack and defend the checking piece conjure that's so different then what really takes place when one avoids check? listen this is just a matter of simple semantics and my word choice makes this part of the article easier to understand. whats so wrong with that? as far as sources go learned in 95 from the popular computer title chessmaster in which Waitzkin himself uses these terms to explain chess. so it's not like I'm just pulling this stuff out of my but here dude. Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because attacking a piece does not get you out of check. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * " Attack the threatening piece (possibly with the king), if doing so would not place the king in check again." it doesn't say attack a random peice. it specifically says attack the threatening piece. big difference. and if you really want it to say capture then just change the flippin word to capture! lol this is minor semantics dude!
 * I'm changing it back to my original post. if you really hate forks that much then go ahead and kill it. but if this is really about the rules then I've justified above the reason for keeping pins in this in order to explain calculating checks on the opposing king of a pinned piece. as far as move attack defend being too "misleading" idk what to say... the very next words after move attack defend explain exactly what those words mean... it's only misleading if you purposefully ignore definitions immediately following the words... Scottdude2000 (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Check pins and forks compromise
since it really seems to bother bubba73 that I added pins and forks I propose a comprimise. I'm going to pull out the section on forks since he's right that it belongs more in chess strategy. I appologise, I originally plaed that there because it kinda goes hand in hand with pins but in the strictest technical sense of the word it is not a rule, it's a strategy. however, I'm leaving pins in since the article already began to cover pins (only haphazardly and redundantly) and ""didn't"" cover the fact that a pinned piece is still considered a threat to the opposing king and therefor the king can't enter a pinned piece's zone of attack. I can't stress enough that if you leave this out of an article on the rules of chess then those rules are incomplete. so to cover this rule one must cover what a pin is in at least the smallest degree and footnote a link to the pins page... I gave pins a very small amount of the articles attention. now can we all say this is a fair compromise? bubb73 what do you think? Scottdude2000 (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion
(Since forks are no longer an issue, this opinion is confined to the new section on pins.) Per Wikipedia's verifiability requirement, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. In this case, if the section on pins relates to a rule of chess, then it should be easy enough to add a source that explicitly identifies it as a rule. As long as the material remains unverifiable, it should be removed. --rgpk (comment) 21:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * you're absolutely right. I've never read chess rules online before. I do have my book I read when I was a kid and it was in there. but thats not really of any use to us for these purposes. I'll do my best to look it up. if I can't find on feel free to kill pins untill you do. but don't kill the edits on check. the number of sources in that section are 100% the same. when I showed up the whole section was kinda lagging. I'm sorry, I'm just doing my best to kill the saggyness of this section at the moment. Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I really don't see much problem with the inclusion of the pins. As far as I understand they are not a rule, they are a known situation, a by-product of the check rule, and that they exist is not contentious (is it?). It was argued before that because this is an article about the rules of chess then they shouldn't be included, but I find that to be unnecessarily zealous. If we were talking about a Gambit, which is mainly a strategy for which the rules are but a peripherial matter, then I would agree, but pins are a known situation that arises specifically, and exclusively, because of the check rule. Of course, I'm not saying that they should be covered in this article, since there is an specific article for that, but a brief extension to the check rule to demonstrate how pins come into play doesn't hurt the article, but instead makes it richer for the reader, even considering that the reader could have deducted the situation on his own given how the check rule is defined - frankie (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * updates updates updates! I found the source on the pins rule. in section 3.1 of the FIDE laws of chess it states a pinned piece is still a threat to it's opposed king. I found the source needed. I'm with frankie. pins and forks are a little different cause they aren't quite strategy but they aren't quite a rule in the case of forks while pin has implications for the rules as strategy and also simply adds a little known rule. sorry if that sentence was jumbled. I really don't want to add much guys. I just thought the short thing on forks was a natural addition since pins were necessary. what do we all think? should we throw forks back in since a situation unique to the rules of check? if you guys want we can keep it short and throw a link to both the pins and forks page? Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts:
 * Keep the section on forks out. Irrelevant to the rules of chess.
 * The FIDE rules and the other rulebooks I checked do say that a piece that is unable to move (because it would expose the king to check) can still give check. (And the FIDE rules do npt use the word "pin".) But they all say it in one sentence.  Say it in one sentence.  Eliminate the section on pins because it is irrelevant to the rules of chess.
 * Restore the three ways to get out of check to the correct version. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the reference included and it doesn't specifically use the word 'Pin'. Though I'm no expert on chess, the fact that the term pin is not explicitly used leads me to believe that the entire sub-section is not a rule in chess. Perhaps it makes sense to include pins, but I suggest that, at best, it be included as an elaboration of the last sentence in 3.1, rather than as a sub-section (which suggests that there is a chess rule called 'pins' which is, apparently, not the case). We have to be careful not to go beyond what reliable sources say. --rgpk (comment) 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I get your point. Perhaps the subsection header could be taken out? That way it wouldn't appear to be a named rule. The FIDE reference does make it clear that a "pinned" piece still provides threat, and that's the clarification that I believe is important to include explicitly, but it doesn't have to be more verbose than necessary to carry the message. Also, personally I think we should keep the board image that represents the situation, as it makes for a useful visual aid to understanding. About the term 'pin' I don't know if it is an "established" term or not, and the one online reference at Pin (chess) was inaccessible to me.
 * Also I agree with Bubba73 on the choice of words for how to get out of check. Attack and defend may have some meaning in an strategic context, but no so much when it comes to pieces, and capture seems more appropriate - frankie (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't specifically use the word pin because that's more of a neologism for a kind of decision. But a pin is defined as threatening a piece which hides a kit from check thereby pinning that piece to the board. The FIDE rules are referring to how to react to such a piece with your king. In otherwords what to do if a piece is pinned. Can you move there or not. Yes they address it in one sentence which is why I found it so quick. But I'm an experienced player. I don't think it wise to assume every reader of this article is smart enough to decipher the FIDE laws of chess language. I think an article on the rules of chess should be comprehensive and aproachable but not redundant and childishly over explanatory which is the balance I was playing with. When I showe up there were several wordy redundancies and some language plagerized right out of the FIDE rule book. I don't think this is a good way to explain the rules of chess to beginners do you? One sentence with almost no explanation? Really bubbs? I think Freddie was spot on before when he called that over zealous. Guys this is the Internet. It's not like there's a shortage of letters here! Let's make this thing helpful and approachable! Scottdude2000 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Three ways to get out of check
I restored the info about the three ways to get out of check to the correct version and added a reference. About 1,500 people read this article each day, so hundreds may have read the incorrect information. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * it's not incorrect. no one agreed with you here that it's incorrect. they said the wording was tricky which I accounted for. and the language on pins was perfectly fine according to my references.. and you are on the verge of violating 3RR. I don't understand why you're obsessively against every contribution I've tried to make dude. right down to the semantics of the word choice you've tried to remove every thing I've improved to advance this part of the article, typos and all! Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * and btw may I just note that not only have you been wrong several times before about what the article says (since it used the language of "pins" before I ever showed up) but my version has more sources than the one you've been reverting to all day? by all measures this is better than the previous version. Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not all about sources - see WP:MOS. I feel that the pins and forks sections more belong in the main chess article. We don't need to argue about the sources. Actually, Scottdue2000, both you and Bubba73 are on the verge of 3RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pins and forks are mentioned in the main chess article: chess (as well as their own articles and chess tactics). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * so is checkmate... should we pull that section out too?Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because, it illustrates a rule, not tactic, of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * but pinned peices can still check kings. thats what makes the pin special and the fork unspecial. Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the sentence as redacted now
 * A player may not make any move which places or leaves their king in check, even if the checking piece cannot move due to a pin, i.e. moving it would expose their own king to check. This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave their king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check.
 * is very concise and sufficient, but I understand how it could be seen as too technical. Scottdude2000, perhaps you could say what do you think could make that sentence more accessible to the uninformed reader - frankie (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * frankie, I'm lost, didn't we fix this in the edits? if I absolutely had to do some variation of that version as opposed to the edits I'd at least want an accompanying diagram and a short blurb about it. as far as the language my thought would be something like: "The threat of an attack from one piece to another may vary depending on whether or not it's pinned (insert link to pins here), BUT: the threat of an attack (or attack squares or zone of attack or whatever language we're using today) from one peice to an opposing king is always considered active regardless of whether or not the piece is pinned down. Thus one can never place the king in harms way --"somethin something somthin lol. I'm tired. I'm going to bed, but I think thats about how that sentence would read. play with it frankie and see what you get. night all.Scottdude2000 (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The official FIDE rules have one sentence about it. The large book USCF Official Rules of Chess has one sentence: rule 12D: A piece blocking a check to the king of its own color, commonly referred to as interposing, can itself give check to the enemy king." Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

quick question (again this is the redundancy type stuff I've been trying to get rid of for clarity's sake) this line "This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave their king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check." in the check section. is it really necessary to note we can't specifically put the king next to another king? we already noted in the first sentance you can't put a king in check... do we really need to start listing off all the different ways you can break this rule? can we cut it so it reads "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king in check" instead of "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king in check, even if the checking piece cannot move due to a pin, i.e. moving it would expose their own king to check. This also means that a player cannot place his king on any square adjacent to the enemy king, because doing so would leave his king able to be taken by the enemy king and therefore in check." which has the pin thing covered later and the adjacent square thing which is redundant. Scottdude2000 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

little formatting help?
can one of you formatting geniuses help me figure out how to keep the diagram for the check section not overlap onto the checkmate section? I don't want to confuse someone.Scottdude2000 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

why have an article on chess?
can I just ask why we are even going to have an article on chess if we're going to exactly copy what our sources say? if we aren't going to do the task of translating this to laymen's what's the point of even having this article? why not at that point just delete everything and put a link up to FIDE's website? bubba seems to want everything to exactly mimmic the rule books which I think doesn't really help the average person learn the rules of chess. he has thrown every reason he can at me to not make any kind of change to what already exists. I know I'm new but I'm not dumb. can we please reach some kind of conclusion? do you guys think any of my contributions were valuable or did I completely waste my time like bubba seems to be implying? Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would defeat the whole purpose of Wikipedia, and no, we cannot copy exactly what the sources say (see WP:Copyright). I personally don't think, however, that any time on Wikipedia is a waste of time. It's just that you didn't win this time. When I first got on here, I also lost a debate.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's about that I guess I'm just baffled. we had a consensus for keeping the section on pins but removing the title and bubba still reverted it calling it all incorrect with nothing to back it up when the sources support my conclusions. Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC) can we come to an agreement on what we want it to say then? we know pins has to be in there. even bubbas reverts have mention of pins. we know it can't be a copy of the FIDE page. my solution accounts for that. does it need to be more succinct or more precise? lets be constructive what needs to be worked out?Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that pins are naturally because of the prohibition against moving into or staying in check.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * except that a pinned piece possesses special qualities for moving into check... hence the inclusion of pins and not the inclusion forks. I changed my version so the title is no longer present as the rest of the group had agreed.Scottdude2000 (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agreed that forks don't belong in an article about chess rules. However, regarding your version, I wouldn't mention pins at all, since the term is not relevant to the fact that a move by the rook on f7 (in your diagram) would be illegal due to placing Black in check.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ohhhhhh now I see where we're not understanding eachother... my point isn't that the rook can't move. my point is that according to the rules a special situation arises in the example I posted. even though the rook can't move (since it's pinned) it CAN still check the white king if white moved King to the F-rank on the right. this is why I wanted to include pins. because a pinned peice can still count when factoring dangerous squares for moving a king. this is a very special and rare kind of check that comes up once and a while which is why I went out and grabbed the extra source to back my quote up per bubba's request. this is why I wanted it to be in the rulebook. Scottdude2000 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the version from a few days ago, there were two sentences about the pinned piece being able to check. That is sufficient.  If you look at what Scottdude added, none of it relates to the rules.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it does, at least the most recent diff. It still relates to the rules - though, that a pinned piece can check should be noted.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * well you have to explain at least the basics of what a pin is to cover how a pin can still affect your check calculations. Scottdude2000 (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it can be done without the term pin. For example, "The black rook on f7 cannot move because otherwise, the black king would be in check from the bishop; however, even if the black rook cannot move legally, White's king is in check from it - pieces that cannot move because they protect against check from a piece of the opponent's can still check the opponent's king."Jasper Deng (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can be done that way. I'm worried about whether it should be done that way or not. 2 reasons. 1) I don't see why we shouldn't take the opportunity and introduce the reader to the chess lingo or help them make a connection to something they already know. 2) I just want it explained better the the weird and redundant two sentences that were around from the original version before I touched everything. I leave this in the hands of the group. whatever you guys want is the way it goes. but I think we should use extant terminology for the benefit of the reader provided there are no subsection headings. sound good?Scottdude2000 (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To try to answer your question at the top of this section, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. It is based on reliable, verifyable published (mostly) secondary sources.

And this article is about he rules of chess - not a general article about chess, not an article about chess strategy or chess tactics. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * bubba... I've pretty much heard enough of what you think. you've used every excuse in the book to try to get rid of what I wrote because clearly you're over attached. nowhere in here did I propose we make things up. show me what I proposed to make up. where did I make something up? . do you know what the word paraphrase means? wikipedia isn't a plagiarizer of materials. it's a paraphrase and explanation of secondary sources into one complete article that is comprehensive but not over extended. everything I did I grabbed from secondary sources. everywhere I overstepped the group corrected me and I redacted it.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * and as far as the rules of chess thing goes. everyone here except you agrees that some kind of change was needed and that the effect of a pin is relevant to the section on check. they might want me to play with the wording but no one is on your side on this one dude. I just don't understand why every edit I make is automatically the worst idea in the world.Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * and as far as the sources go I used the same source you all have been using and now I've got one more source than the original before I touched it. or is FIDE not reliable now?Scottdude2000 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The rule about the pinned piece was already in there before you made your changes. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * which is what makes your complaints about the presence of pins a little silly. Scottdude2000 (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm complaining about all of the nonsense you added. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

not in the rules
There is nothing in the rules about: These have nothing to do with the rules of chess. Some people did a lot of work to get this article to Good Article status. With this in there it will lose that status. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * new subcategory of chess strategy
 * the piece's positional value on the board has been nullified
 * attack zone


 * I told you that section of the article was getting wordy. the new language is being hammered otu above... but the old version is clearly worse. super redundant and poorly sourced. some of us are still working hard despite consistent, perpetual mindless redactions.Scottdude2000 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * sidebar, while there are words here that aren't specifically mentioned in the rules they have been used anyways even by your versions of the check section. pins werent in the rule book either but your version used that term until I supported it at which point you proposed we call it and interposing (which I've never heard of in my entire life until you introduced it). that being said I think some of this language needs to massaged so I'll work on that today.Scottdude2000 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * per bubba's request I made some changes to the language... everyone lemme know what they think.Scottdude2000 (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you want to elaborate on situations relating to a pin, then you need to do so using the wording in rule 3.9 in, which says "even if such pieces are constrained from moving to that square because they would then leave or place their own king in check". The current text is unnecessarily confusing (though the diagram is very clear). --rgpk (comment) 17:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ok I'll hack it down a lil bit.Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * actually now is prolly a good time to use the new language me and frankie worked out!Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * okie dokie regentspark! all the new language is in. it flows better, and makes more sense. this is one of the harder rules to explain but I think this accurately covers it while remaining concise.Scottdude2000 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

bubba. it's not neccesary to note that it's impossible to put a peice in between a pawn and a king right next to eachother. thats called being redundant. me removing that isn't me endorcing the idea that kings can block adjacent pawns. just like it's not neccesary to not that you can't get out of chess by moving your king to the other side of the board... it's obvious!. would not including that mean I believe we can move kings to the other side of the board? the original draft before I touched it listed every peice that couldn't have a peice placed inbetween it and the king. and the list included every piece on the board! please stop edit warring and starting meaningless fights to make a point. at the very least, if you feel like being childish. take it to the talk page? Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Obvious?
If it is obvious that you can't block a check from a pawn then it is also obvious that you can't block a check from a knight. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

yes only slightly less obvious so I left it in but I'd be just as happy with that coming out. I think one of my drafts that you redacted had a clean version without the knight. again why would you need to explain that a non directionally moving piece can't have it's path obstructed? lets take that out too. Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look on page 31 of the Polgar reference. It says that you can't block a check by a knight or pawn.  Either say what the reference says and list both or take the sentence out.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * which I did multiple times before you redacted mine and other's changes. as I did just now per your request. the change has been made. can we move on? Scottdude2000 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You kept taking out pwan and leaving in knight and the rest of the sentence. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * is this aggressiveness even relevant? for christ's sakes we've reached a compromise that works. must you have your cake and eat it too? Scottdude2000 (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

forced mate?
I was thinking the section on checkmate might need a blurb about forced mates. since essentially every checkmate is a forced mate. what does the group say? Scottdude2000 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not. This article is about the rules of chess and that isn't a rule of chess.  And not all checkmates are "forced".  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * bubba thinks no (surprise). what's everyone else think. I guess my thought is since forced mate redirects on wikipedia to forced mate (undercutting bubba's point) and a forced mate is merely defined as an inescapable loss (which includes a loss at one move out) that we should at least have a small mention near the bottom. it's more of a term than a rule but it still applies. Scottdude2000 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No my point is that it is not a rule, and you admitted that. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * it's a definition that isn't being covered anywhere and directly pertains to the definition of checkmate. ok bubba thinks it will be the end of the world. what does everyone ELSE think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if by forced mate you are referring to what happens usually at the endgame where you chase the opponent's king until it is finally cornered. If that is the case, it is not a rule. Other than that, Forced mate redirects to Checkmate, where it is used to refer to the act of achieving checkmate in a certain number of moves (and not as a fixed concept, but simply using forced as an adjective of mate). Such treatment is valid in that article, but there's really nothing to be said about it rule-wise - frankie (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * yeah I was just toying with the idea. mostly because it bothers me a little bit that it's never covered anywhere. I think I'm probably gonna mosy on over to checkmate and have it included. btw skilled players can make the occasional forced mate appear before endgame arrives ;) well... just a thought. I'm probably gonna work with some of the inaccessible language in the rest of this article if everyone else (but bubba) doesn't mind.Scottdude2000 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So far you haven't improved the article very much, despite making about 46 edits in two days. That's way, way too many edits for this small amount of change: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rules_of_chess&action=historysubmit&diff=436961844&oldid=429766574.  I also have to say that your attitude sucks.  The article would probably be better if you just left it and checkmate alone. Quale (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I was able to reverse most of his additions. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * wait wait wait wait. who's fault exactly is it that i had to do a million edits? (hint... ^). i had a decent first draft. i asked everyone and lots of people made contributions which bubba was never fine with at any point and even at the beginning used every excuse he could to roll everyone's work but his own back. he wanted to keep it the same and I'd like to see this article get a higher quality grade. and yeah I'm a little irate towards someone who would rather the article stay exactly as is and is almost obsessed with making sure there's no change period. most of my edits also went to readability since he;s been plagiarizing his sources (which read like a technical manual). Don't get me wrong, bubbas source work is great. and I wish there chould be some cooperation but he doesn't want that! how do we cooperatively edit and contribute when one among us doesn't want any change to HIS article? I've taken everyone else's criticisms just fine. and if you have some constructive criticism quale, then I'd be happy to hear it. most of my edits are one or two word changes so if that's your only criticism then fine. just like the pins and forks thing I'll take it into account and do bigger chunks of edits (which seemed to make bubba have a conniption so really idk how to make everyone happy). but when comparing the two of us remember that I never damaged the article just to toy with him or make a point. he did it to me and the rest of us. Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems that both Quale and Scottdude2000 need to assume good faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe both are acting in good faith. However, one of them is basing his edits on what he thinks he remembers from a 1995 computer game.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Quale's rollbacks
I make small edits: you freak out. I make big edits: you freak out and torch em all in one swift move. did you want me to make big edits so you could eliminate them more quickly? btw you also just killed other people's edits who agreed with the pins check paragraph. it's a rule. it has to be included in the rules of chess. this is a non negotiable. you didn't even state your case against the edits on the talk page.Scottdude2000 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick look at by Scottdude2000 makes me think that many of the changes do not improve the original. The talk about "a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio" for a knight would not be clear to someone who needed to read the article, and I doubt if similar language is used in any standard "rules of chess". Extra words sometimes simply introduce confusion, although each case needs examination. I would say that adding "In official play" for the discussion of castling is unhelpful: "one hand" is the rule and if people choose to ignore it during unofficial play, that is their business (or, if warranted, a section on unofficial play might be added). Likewise, the extra words for "in check" don't seem to help. By contrast, removing "if doing so would not leave the king in check" seems unhelpful: yes, it is redundant, but it adds clarity. The original "Check" section is more clear. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Conciseness is necessary in encyclopedias, especially in paper encyclopedias. Just because Wikipedia isn't one doesn't mean we should be as concise as possible. The manual of style should be consulted by Scottdude2000.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * let me take this in parts:
 * listen I know there is a conciseness issue on the knight thing. BELIEVE me I know haha. here's my thing: some of the finer points of chess are difficult to convey verbally without writing a gigantic paragraph. I think we saw that clearly when we added the section on check and pins. while anyone here could read the bullets on knights and completely understand it I don't feel like the language lent itself to a beginner at all. two steps and a 90 degree turn? the knight moves two squares like a rook then one square perpendicular to that? The knight moves to the nearest square not on the same rank, file, and diagonal square? I left some of it in because I didn't want to get accused of deleting too much. but if we really wanted to be as concise as possible while being clear enough for a newbie to understand I'd say we should kill all of it and only use the 2:1 ratio. L7 illustration. I don't think we should use two analogies let alone three and if the user is consulting the rules on piece movements I don't think it's safe to assume they have the rook concept down to the point that they can interchange the two images in their heads and work it all out on their own. this is the main thrust of my problem with this article. it's written like a technical manual. sometimes it's overly redundant. other times it's vague assuming the person reading understands what's going on. this isn't a safe assumption I think. as far as the 2:1 1:2 ratio thing is the clearest way I could think of (along with the L and 7 shapes) to explain a complicated idea to a beginner. it's simple. A knight moves either 2X and 1Y or 1X and 2Y. no need to introduce two or three ideas to illustrate this. I think if we just changed it to that and the L7 thing we'd be good.
 * On the "in official play" comment: the article has a separate section for competition rules. while this isn't written in stone, the rest of the article has the sense of assuming that these rules of chess are being exercised in a somewhat less formal setting. how two people decide in their homes of local coffee bean to regulate a game of chess is totally up to them. maybe we should just move the whole thing to the official play section?
 * idk what you mean by "the extra words in check". do you mean the paragraph on pins and check?
 * I took out "if doing so in check because you can literally add that aside to every sentence in the check section including all the check bullet points. the section makes it clear once at the top and again in the pins paragraph that you must absolutely never leave your king in check (only where it is necessary). but if we add it there theres no reason not to add it in a bunch of other places. actually now that I think about it you can add that to every sentence in the whole article haha. bear in mind that before my original edits that section says not to place or leave your king in check like 3 times. this was the last of what was too much redundancy IMHO. Scottdude2000 (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2:1 ratio and L7 thing is not accurate. For example, this could mean that a knight on h1 could move to f5 in one move, which it can't. Personally, I prefer 2 squares along a rank/file, and one square to the direct side of that. Also, please remember Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * wait do you mean the language could be seen as a double entendre since it never says you can't move twice? well I could put a line in there that says you may only move it once but at that point I think it's too much... damn I wanted to clarify the flow of thought there so bad. oh well. I'll revert that section back. thanks for catching that jasper. thanks for the note on the how to thing. In the future I'll try to hold a balance between accessibility and informational dissemination.Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)