User:SyG/Sandbox archived

Rules of chess
Comment As asked for by the nominator, I will review this article with the objective of GA-class in mind, so please forgive me if the review is not as thorough as you may want.

General remarks
 * There is a few inconsistencies about numbers in letters, I will change them as I stumble upon.
 * Most references do not have a proper title, I will change them as I stumble upon.
 * Some diagrams have the caption at left, others have it centered. Consistency would be nice.
 * The article uses several systems of citation (footnotes, harvard, ...). It is necessary to have only one, per Citing sources.
 * What about a section on famous occasions when the rules were breached, like when Kasparov castled against Polgar although he had already moved his King ? That could liven a bit the article without going out of the subject ?

Lead
 * I would try to avoid putting references in the Lead, they are less obstrusive in the main body of the article.


 * "these standard chess rules are widely accepted by the international organization FIDE".
 * Which "standard chess rules" ? The ones explained in the article of Wikipedia ? It does not go well with the sentence just before, in which we say that different places have different rules.
 * the reader may not understand the word "widely" in the sentence. If they are accepted by FIDE this is only 1 organisation, so "widely" does not mean much. Or does that mean "most of the rules are accepted by FIDE, but not all" ?


 * "slightly modified by national organizations such as the US Chess Federation." Why is the USCF cited ? What does it bring to the reader ? Why not simply "slightly modified by national organizations." ?


 * "There are slight variations of the rules for fast chess, correspondence chess, chess variants, etc."
 * What does "etc" aims for ? If that aims for "all the chess forms that do not have exactly the same rules", the sentence becomes a tautology.
 * It does not seem right to say there are slight variations for chess variants. In that latter case the variations can be huge. Also, the chess variants are not explained in the next sections of the article, so they should not be cited in the Lead.
 * When we say the rules for fast chess are slight variations, this implies fast chess is a secondary class of chess while 2h chess are the main class. Is it categorised as such in the rules ?


 * "Rules also govern (...) games that are played under time control." I may be missing the meaning here, it reads like an evidence to me.

Initial setup
 * "The boards commonly used for chess tournaments have (...) green and buff squares" There are two references, but I do not see where they support this statement.
 * I think the second paragraph is superfluous and has few to do with the rules of chess. I would delete it.

Gameplay
 * "Play continues until a king is checkmated, a player resigns, or a draw is declared" What about losing on time ?
 * "Unlike Go, where the order of play is determined by the relative skills and handicaps of the players, the official chess rules do not include a procedure for determining who plays White." I do not think the reference to Go is that useful, as most readers will not know Go.
 * diagram "Moves of a king" mixes the moves of the king and the castling. I would suggest to let only the moves of the king, while a diagram on castling can be added in the specific subsection about casting.
 * diagram "Moves of a pawn" has a very long caption, which hurts layout. More problematic, it uses chess notation of moves that has not been explained: what does "last Black move was g7-g5" mean ?
 * As indicated on the Talk page, I like Bubba73's suggestion to change the presentation, with "en passant" and promotion upgraded to full subsections.
 * "Alternatively, an inverted rook may be used to represent a queen, or the pawn on its side can be used and the player should indicate which piece it represents" Really ? In France there is a hot debate whether it is actually permitted or not, and some players have argued that "a rook is a rook is a rook", be it reversed or not. Could we mention the precise text of FIDE allowing that ?
 * in the subsection "Castling", maybe we should mention that it is authorised to move both pieces in the same time, but not to start with the rook.
 * in the subsection "Check", the caption of the diagram is obscure to the reader ("Harkness").
 * in the subsection "Check", we use chess notation about the squares ("e5", "f4") without having explained to the reader how that works.

End of the game
 * No mention of losing on time ?
 * diagram has caption "Harkness", which does not bring much to the reader.
 * in the subsection "Resigning", how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, while he was in reality resigning in a draw position ? (unfortunately I do not remember the name of the opponent; maybe Guelfand or Svidler)
 * "Players would be likely to agree to a draw since it is a theoretical draw" (caption of second diagram). I find this example much too complex for the reader. Most players under 2000 Elo would not agree to a draw in this position, not knowing it is a theoretical draw. Also, the notion of "theoretical draw" is not defined in the article and is too difficult to explain. Can we find something easier ?

Competition rules
 * the subsection "Touch-move rule" does not explain what happens if the touched piece cannot perform a legal move.
 * at the beginning of the game, it is customary to let his opponent touch all his pieces to place them exactly in the centre of the squares, without requiring him to say "j'adoube" every time.
 * "Only the player whose turn it is to move may touch the pieces" I find the structure of the sentence a bit heavy, can we find something lighter ?
 * "Each player must make all his moves in a specified time, or be subject to forfeiting the game." Here we should explain that "specified time" may only mean a general formula, like 2h + 30s per move, and not necessarily a specified duration.
 * "If there is a checkmate on the board, the player delivering checkmate wins instantly, no matter what is subsequently noticed about the time." What if the player has not noticed the checkmate, accepts his defeat on time, and comes back two hours latter claiming there was a checkmate on the board ?
 * If both players run out of time, it is a sudden death time control, and it can be established who ran out of time first, what happens ?
 * "For example, a king and rook versus a king, bishop, and pawn cannot be won by either player virtually all of the time" Not true, these games will be won most of the time because most chess players (me included) are patzers who lose a piece every 10 moves.

Irregularities
 * In the first paragraph, the article does not mention that an illegal move in competition will usually allow a time sanction from the arbiter, even if it is not blitz chess.
 * in the subsection "Irregularities", what happens if there are problems with the clock ? For example the clock was not started with the correct amount of time, or the clock stopped during the game ?

Equipment
 * There are redundancies between this section and the beginning of the section "Initial setup". I would advise to displace most of it in "Equipment".

History
 * Currently the section is organised between one unnamed subsection on the rules themselves, and another subsection on the codification of the rules. I am not completely convinced this is the best approach. I would suggest a full chronological structure, presenting both the changed of the rules and the codification as they go by.
 * The first subsection is too poor on dates, even vague ones. Each change of period should be mentioned.

Possible shorter version of "London International Tournament, 1851" for Howard Staunton


In May 1851, at the occasion of the Great Exhibition in London, Staunton proposed and then took the lead in organizing the first ever international tournament. He thought the Great Exhibition presented a unique opportunity because the difficulties that obstructed international participation would be greatly reduced. He may also have been motivated by reports that a few years earlier Ludwig Bledow had proposed to organize an international tournament in Germany, whose winner was to be recognized as the world champion. Staunton and his colleagues had ambitious objectives for this tournament, including convening a "Chess Parliament" to complete the standardization of various rules and procedures for competitive chess and for writing about chess. Staunton also proposed the production of a compendium showing what was known about chess openings, preferably as a table.

Despite the generally enthusiatic response, several major players (von der Lasa, Saint-Amant, Cochrane) were unable to participate. Adolf Anderssen was first deterred by the travel costs but he accepted the invitation when Staunton generously offered to pay Anderssen's travel expenses out of his own pocket if necessary.

The tournament was a success, but disapointing for Staunton personally; in the 2nd round he was knocked out by Anderssen, who won the tournament convincingly; and in the play-off for 3rd place Staunton was narrowly beaten by his former pupil Elijah Williams. Staunton's defeat by Williams suggests that Staunton had over-stretched himself by acting as both a competitor and the Secretary of the organizing committee, since he had been successfully giving odds to Williams just before the tournament.

In 1852 Staunton published his book The Chess Tournament, which recounted in detail the efforts required to make the London International Tournament happen and presented all the games with his comments on the play. Unfortunately some of Staunton's comments in the book and in the Illustrated London News were intemperate, because he was so disappointed with the placing he achieved.

Possible Lead for Staunton (v1)
Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22 1874) was an English chess master who was probably one of the world's two strongest players from 1843 to 1851. His chess writings and the international chess tournament he organised in 1851 greatly helped the development of chess in the United Kingdom.

Despite starting to study seriously only in 1836, he quickly improved and by 1843 he was easily the strongest British player. From 1843 to 1849 he won matches against the chess masters Cochrane, Saint-Amant, Horwitz and Harrwitz. In 1849 he promoted a chess set that became and still is the official standard. In 1851 he organised in London the first international chess tournament, which made England the world's leading chess center and recognised Anderssen as the world's strongest player. After 1851 his other activities and his declining health did not let him play chess matches anymore. Hence, while it is often alleged that Staunton avoided playing Morphy in 1858 and deliberately misled him about the prospects of arranging a match, the evidence suggests that Staunton more probably over-estimated his chances both of getting physically fit and of making available the time for a match.

Staunton was not an all-out attacking player, but was known for accurate and incisive attacks when he thought his preparations were complete. Some of his games are the origin of the English chess opening. Despite a story that Morphy described him as "the author of ... some devilish bad games", Morphy thought highly of his judgement and accuracy, although he thought Staunton lacked the imagination necessary to deliberately create opportunites for combinations.

In 1845 he started to write chess articles and chess books, that were respected for the quality of their analysis and that encouraged the development of chess in the United Kingdom. Staunton's writing could be spiteful, especially when he thought someone was opposing him with insuffient reason or when he was disappointed by an unexpected defeat. His 1847 book The Chess-Player's Handbook was so popular that it did not go out of print until 1993. Staunton was also a Shakespearean scholar, relatively minor but his work is still well-regarded. He also wrote a book about English public schools which presented some progressive ideas.

Lead for First-move advantage in chess
The first-move advantage in chess refers to the inherent advantage gained by the player who makes the first move in chess&mdash;referred to as "White". Chess players and theorists generally agree that White begins the game with some advantage, and have debated whether, given perfect play by both sides, the game should end in a win for White or a draw. The benefit has been proved in statistics compiled over the past 150 years, which consistently show that White wins slightly more often than Black, usually scoring between 53 and 56 percent. Statistics have also shown that White's winning percentage is less important in rapid games and in games between weaker players. The advantage is about the same, however, for chess games between humans and chess games between computers. Actually, it is possible that computers will eventually resolve this debate by determining the correct outcome of a perfectly played game of chess.

Since at least 1889, when former World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz addressed the issue, the overwhelming consensus has been that a game of chess should end in a draw with best play. As the analysis and understanding of chess improves, this has caused some concerns about its future, and lots of chess variants have been proposed to renew the interest of the game, sometimes by World Champions like José Raúl Capablanca or Bobby Fischer. Nonetheless, a few notable players have argued that White's advantage may be sufficient to win, Weaver W. Adams claiming White is winning after the first move 1.e4 and Hans Berliner thinking White can win with 1.d4.

In the last thirty years, several established views about White's advantage have been challenged. András Adorján wrote a serie of successful books on the theme that "Black is OK!", trying to show that Black can always find a suitable path for equality, whatever White tries in the opening to get an advantage. Mihai Suba contended that sometimes White's initiative disappears as the game goes by, for no apparent reason. Some World Champions like Fischer or Garry Kasparov, when playing Black, do not strive for equality but instead try to get an advantage by seeking the initiative and creating structural contrasts between each player's placement of pieces.

It was also expressed that Black has certain countervailing advantages. The consensus that White should try to win can be a psychological burden for the White player, who sometimes loses just because he tries too hard to win and eventually makes a mistake. Also, according to game theory playing in second could be an advantage, because White has to unveil its hand first. Hence some openings are considered as good for Black but not so for White, because their point lies into a reactionary nature that can only be expressed once the other player has moved. Some symmetrical openings (i.e. when both players do the same moves) can also lead to situations where moving first is a disadvantage, either for psychological or objective reasons.

Possible Lead for Staunton (v2): 196 words
Howard Staunton (April 1810 – June 22 1874) was an English chess master who was one of the world's two strongest players from 1843 to 1851. His chess writings and the international chess tournament he organised in 1851 greatly helped the development of chess in the United Kingdom.

By 1843 he was easily the strongest British player, winning matches against the chess masters Cochrane, Saint-Amant, Horwitz and Harrwitz. Staunton was not an all-out attacking player, but was known for accurate attacks when his preparations were complete. Some of his games are the origin of the English chess opening. In 1849 he promoted a chess set that became and still is the official standard. In 1851 he organised in London the first international chess tournament, which made England the world's leading chess center and recognised Anderssen as the world's strongest player. In 1858 a match against Morphy unfortunately failed to happen.

In 1845 he started to write chess articles and books, that were respected for the quality of their analysis and that developed chess in the United Kingdom. His 1847 book The Chess-Player's Handbook was so popular that it did not go out of print until 1993. Staunton was also a Shakespearean scholar, relatively minor but his work is still well-regarded.

Possible Lead for Staunton (v3): 284 words
Howard Staunton (1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who is regarded as the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851, largely as a result of his 1843 victory over Saint-Amant. He promoted a chess set that is still the official standard. He was the principal organizer of the first international chess tournament in 1851, which made England the world's leading chess center and caused Anderssen to be recognised as the world's strongest player.

From 1843 to 1849 he was the United Kingdom's strongest player and won matches against the top players of the time. In 1847 he entered a parallel career as a Shakespearean scholar, and his work in this field is still well-regarded. After 1851, poor health and his two writing careers prevented him from playing serious competitive chess. It is often alleged that Staunton avoided playing Morphy in 1858 and deliberately misled him about the prospects of a match, but it is also possible Staunton had just over-estimated his chances both of getting physically fit and of making available the time for a match. Staunton continued to write about chess and Shakespeare until his death.

Although not an all-out attacking player, Staunton was known for accurate attacks when his preparations were complete. His chess articles and books were respected for their quality and they encouraged the development of chess in the United Kingdom. The English chess opening and Staunton Gambit received their names after his advocacy of them. His 1847 book The Chess-Player's Handbook was a reference for decades. Staunton has been a controversial figure since his own time, and his chess writings could be spiteful. On the other hand he maintained good working relationships with several strong players, and showed excellent management skills in the organisation of the 1851 chess tournament.

Possible Lead for Staunton (v4): 259 words
Howard Staunton (1810 – June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who is regarded as the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851, largely as a result of his 1843 victory over Saint-Amant. He promoted a chess set that is still the standard. He was the principal organizer of the first international chess tournament in 1851, which made England the world's leading chess center and caused Anderssen to be recognised as the world's strongest player.

From 1843 to 1851 he won matches against the top players of the time. In 1847 he entered a parallel career as a Shakespearean scholar. In 1858 attempts were made to organise a match between Staunton and Morphy but it failed to happen. It is often alleged that Staunton deliberately misled Morphy while trying to avoid the match, but it is also possible Staunton over-estimated his chances of getting physically fit and of making time available for a match. After 1851, poor health and his writing career prevented him from playing serious competitive chess.

Although not an all-out attacking player, Staunton was known for accurate attacks when his preparations were complete. His chess articles and books were widely read (his 1847 book The Chess-Player's Handbook was a reference for decades) and encouraged the development of chess in the United Kingdom. The English chess opening and Staunton Gambit received their names after his advocacy of them. Staunton has been a controversial figure since his own time, and his chess writings could be spiteful. On the other hand he maintained good working relationships with several strong players and influential chess enthusiasts, and showed excellent management skills in tournament organisation.

Summary of the Staunton-Morphy controversy for the "Personality" part
The behaviour of Staunton in the failed attempts to organise a match between Morphy and himself has often been used as evidence of his bad character. The chess writer David Lawson considers Staunton's charges about the match as "unfair or unsportsmanlike". The chess journalist Dale Brandreth crudely states that Staunton acted this way with Morphy because he knew he could not beat him. The chess journalist Frank Skoff frowns upon alleged Staunton's practices as cutting out crucial paragraphs in letters or unfairly abusing his opponents. Other chess authors like David Hooper, however, think the bad reputation of Staunton in this affair has to do with inaccurate reports from Frederick Edge, Morphy's personal secretary.