Talk:Chess

FIDE Definition

Shouldn't we be using the actual FIDE acronym (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) rather than (International Chess Federation)?

Article status

Are there any plans/interest to bring this article back to FA? It seems on first glance to have a solid enough foundation, and has interested editors working on it. Might be near GA level already Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think the frantic efforts to bring it back to FA status according to modern wikipedia standards were a negative for the overall quality of the article. Most of the GA/FA reviewers don't know much about chess anyway. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The FA review that led to delisting was in early 2021. While one editor was attempting to address the initial concerns, another editor started a major rewrite (in his own words, "I tried to start a rewrite of the article to try to repeat the salvation 10 years ago"), which completely disrupted the process of addressing the original concerns. Another editor wrote, "That pretty much sums up my decades-long frustration with this article." A "solid enough foundation" and "interested editors working on it" are not sufficient to achieve anything, if editors influencing the decision have their own ancient agendas. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

photo of chess pieces at top of article

This is the photo that comes up when googling "chess". Why have such cheap-looking plastic pieces? 2A01:CB05:519:700:9980:9E93:F8E2:60EB (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative image on Wikimedia Commons you'd like to suggest instead? Edderiofer (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That set is prevalent at club level ("universally recognized" at least in USA), inexpensive yes, but that is good since chess is world-popular w/ key advantage that chess as hobby is low cost, therefore a better representative set for photo for WP article than photo of a $250-or-higher wood set. The plastic injection molds were thoughfully done in time-tested Staunton-inspired design. --IHTS (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Origin of Chess-where does black pieces came from?

As controversial as it is a lot has been said regarding chess origin however ,I wanted to add that BLACK from history perspective specialy in Africa should also be part of the history given that there are historical documents and photos showing that games similar to chess exsisted.So i ask anywone with editing access to add or link SENTEREJ so that more african chess historians could study further.Where does the concept Black came from?🙏🇪🇹 Meknoah (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The convention that White moves first does not have its origins in racism. Originally either White or Black could move first. It's because according to superstitions of the time the black pieces were considered more lucky or desirable, so in compensation the white pieces were allowed to move first. Over time the "white moves first" convention evolved and became one of the rules (relatively recently, in the 19th century). The opposite happened in checkers. We welcome Ethiopian or any other cultural perspectives on chess. Maybe you have some ideas for the Senterej article? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

In shogi and go, of course, Black moves first. (Where shogi pieces are undifferentiated in color; black go stones being made of slate.) --IHTS (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Origins

Recent changes have restored citations of Leibs and of Estes and Robinson to the discussion of the origins of chess, in Chess, History of Chess, and Chaturanga. These two books are not reliable secondary sources on questions about the origins of chess. We evaluated them in January 2021, as well as some other sources, and here is the assessment (copied from Talk:Chess/Archive 10#"Years active" in the infobox):

I have found copies of (the cited pages of) Leibs, Estes & Robinson, Murray, and Bird online. Here is my assessment -- other editors are welcome to correct me:

• Murray sums up the origin of chess, 7th century, "NW India", on pages 26 and 27, but there are some later pages with more details. Note that when he was writing, what is now Pakistan was still part of India. So does "NW India" mean modern-day Pakistan? Judging from later pages, in which he mentions Sri Harsha of Kannauj, I think he had in mind more the "Indian" part of north India.
• Estes & Robinson has only 27 pages, and nothing about chess. Even if there is a page 34 and it's about chess, this doesn't look like a reliable source on chess history.
• Bird is quite a gathering of historical sources, but page 63 is not relevant to the history of chess. I did not see another page in which Bird tried to give a conclusive summary of the early history. But his claim that some ancient Roman texts mentioned "Chess" suggests to me that his criteria of what constitutes "chess" are not very strict.
• Leibs summarizes the pre-medieval history briefly and gives no sources. His "6th century" contradicts Murray, which is interesting, but I don't see anything to substantiate that.

Bruce leverett (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Added later:

• "Estes & Robinson" was written by Robinson, illustrated by Estes. I found page 34 by the usual devious trickery with Google Books, but this is not a useful reference, nor should it be in our bibliography. It is a book full of art projects. It is not a secondary source for chess history. On page 34 it mentions that chess came from India, and that's all. I have removed that citation, and removed that bibliography entry.
• I have replaced the URL for Murray with the URL for the Google Books version, which has all the pages.
• Bird has a summary of the earliest origins of chess that does not contradict Murray's, but I do not have a version of Bird that has authentic page numbers, so I will assume that the page number of 63 is correct. As a reference, Bird is more or less superseded by Murray, but it's fun to look through Bird, so I do not have any problem with keeping that citation.
• Murray's dating of chess to the 7th century was authoritative when he published it (1913). It is conceivable that Leibs knows of some source, found since 1913, which would push the date back to the 6th century; but as I said above, I don't see any substantiation of that.
• The Gupta empire was kaput by 543 CE. So it isn't safe to claim that chess originated under that empire.

Bruce leverett (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• In the book 'Chess History and Reminiscences' bird clearly mentions chess has reached persia in the 1st half of 6th century only, on page 228.
• Liebs mentions it in 6th century as well.
• The gupta empire was not done in 543 CE. If you look at the map they started losing land from 510 to 520's CE but after that did a reconquest after that . They completely started falling apart only after 550 CE.
• Vasuvadatta who gives the earliest reference to the board game has been recently been dated to 5th century, a courtier of two gupta kings.

Qaayush529 (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not remember how I arrived at the date of 543 CE. Looking at Gupta Empire, I would agree with you that 550 CE is a better date.

Murray (p. 51) mentions Vasuvadatta, and allows that the reference to the board game in it is "quite satisfactory". I see from Vasavadatta that the date associated with that tale has been debated:

He is generally taken to have written the work in the second quarter of the seventh century.[1] However, scholar Maan Singh has stated that he was a courtier of the Gupta emperors Kumaragupta I (414-455) and Skandagupta (455-467), dating him between 385 and 465 AD.[2]

Bruce leverett (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

heyBruce leverett (talk) . How are you going to explain bird and leibs references . They explicitly mentione it has reached in persia by 1st half of 6th century. That means it was already developed in northen indian in the previous centuries ruled by the gupta emperors. Vasuvadatta is also dated to 5th century by the new scholars thanks to some new archealogical discovery .

Isn't Murray reference quite old in this regard when we have comparitively little information and most excavations were still made out.

I would like to know your response. In my opinion it would be better if we add all the references Summerkillsme (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

hey Bruce leverett (talk) . Here another image which pretty much proves chess was already present in persia in 1st half of 6th century.

khosrow representative playing chess

One more thing is most likely this book was not excavated during Murray time so he had no idea of this reference of chess.

but the other authors does.

Its also easy to assume from this chess was indeed well developed and played in northen india in 5th and 6th century. Summerkillsme (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I will be reverting the recent changes to those three articles that re-introduced the citations of Leibs and of Estes and Robinson. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. One small point—Bird's view of chess history is highly inaccurate and I don't think it should be used as a source for the origins of chess. Even if he wasn't wrong on some specific point he was wrong about a lot and I would never point anyone to Bird with the expectation that it's accurate. Don't use Bird. Quale (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Fivefold repetition rule

Why is it named fivefold and all the links send you to threefold? Am I missing something or should it be changed to threefold? MiniFlux (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Fivefold repetition is closely related to, but handled differently from, threefold repetition. There is a brief section of the article on threefold where we define and discuss fivefold. It would be more helpful if the links for fivefold sent you to that section, rather than just the beginning of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023

 please, let me edit. I promise i will behave

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop undoing the edit. That’s just not on

“Always” is not true at all. There are absolutely people who refer to it as red/white when the set is red and white. I have heard it myself from other people when playing with these boards. None of you have managed to provide a genuine justification for why “always” is correct. This is because it isn’t correct. While I accept that 99% of the time they’ll say red/black, the fact that any outliers exist proves it should say mostly or usually rather than every single time. I’m fed up of you reverting the edit and saying “yes it is always actually because so there” when there are obvious exceptions. Need an example? Alice in Wonderland (2010) red and white board, referred to as red/white. Based on Lewis Carroll’s Alice through the looking glass, same matter. While there are more examples, they aren’t relevant, since ANY example of an outlier disproves the “always” case. Don’t be silly now please. CitrusSoEpic (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll wrote (among other things) fantasy fiction, not chess books. There is not a single chess book that will refer to the pieces as anything other than black and white. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

An example of an outlier doesn’t disprove “always”. If I say that driving is always in the right lane in the United States, the existence of someone driving in the left lane doesn’t disprove what I said. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think replacing

While the sets might not be literally white and black (...), they are always referred to as "white" and "black".

with

While the sets might not be literally white and black (...), they are referred to as "white" and "black".

(i.e., deleting "always") would be a marginal improvement. Strictly speaking, the meaning would be the same (so it might not entirely satisfy user:CitrusSoEpic), but it would be briefer and (imho - as a non-native speaker) slightly more elegant. Nø (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nø - I'm fine with just removing the qualifier entirely ("always" "usually" "traditionally" or whatever) - calling the sides "white" and "black" is just a basic statement of fact. Antandrus (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I normally enjoy removing superfluous words. But “always” made a strong impression on User:CitrusSoEpic, so I have to assume that it is serving a purpose there. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I also favor simply removing "always". It doesn't really serve any essential purpose and it invites needless argument. Quale (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne2 has improved the text while neatly circumventing the above arguments. But this is reminding me of two related issues. First is that with actual chess sets, color is not always crucial, e.g. crusaders vs. Saracens. Second is that we perhaps should make it clearer that any discussion of chess set appearance and/or aesthetics is not, by definition, a discussion of chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Images

A few image issues in this article. The MOS asks to avoid image sandwiching—WP:SANDWICH—and at the moment the Setup section (yes one is not an image, but it creates the same issue of squeezed text) includes such an issue, as does the "Post-World War II era" section.

Re this reversion, the Public chess tables in Paris currently appears rather irrelevantly in the Rules section. How it properly supports the line "chess is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide" (claimed in the reversion's edit summary) I have no idea, as said line appears four paragraphs earlier, i.e. no where near it. I suggest removing it.

Additionally, there are numerous section which would benefit from media of some kind, i.e. much of Theory and the later history section. Aza24 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am traveling and cannot verify your statement that the illustration lands in a bad place, nor fix it, until I can work on something larger than a mobile phone. But I like the photo and will try to place it appropriately. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also I recall thinking that the article could use some more illustrations, but that’s another thing I can’t work on while traveling. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Not understanding how or why you're seeing the Paris chess tables image in the Rules sec; markup puts it immediately after the Infobox in the lead, which is what I see on either a pc or using the mobile view sidebar. --IHTS (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I am on a laptop with vector 2022. The infobox pushes the table images into the rules section as the TOC is not there anymore to separate it. As such, it appears to be relevant to the rules section, when it is presumably not. I don't really see anywhere else it could be put, so deletion seems like the logical conclusion. If there was a section on amateur play around the world, i.e. in cafes, parks and other spaces, it would be fitting there. Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't/couldn't know anything re the Vector stuff. Have taken your idea literally and added a new sec (open to modification and/or expansion). The "millions of people worldwide" thing in the lead shouldn't be w/o some sort of body support anyway; plus, there's no doubt more people who play than those who play in organized events, and the article is/was focused nearly or exclusively on rated play.  Done --IHTS (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Post-World War II era" sec:  Done --IHTS (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Setup sec:  Done --IHTS (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Fastest tournament games

I reverted this edit by Amshpee that had no WP:RS. However, I do agree that there are tournaments that are faster than 10 minutes. I have played in them! I have never heard of a bullet chess (1 min.) tournament in person. Of course, there are such tournaments like that online all the time. We need better WP:RS in the article if we are going to correct the info. box. We might need to distinguish in-person tournaments from online tournaments in the description in the info box. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

We're distinguishing between casual and tournament, and between fast chess and slower tournament chess. The infobox should really not be so detailed -- infoboxes are supposed to be ultra-concise.

Looking around at other sports and games, I haven't yet found any that use the playing_time parameter! So perhaps we could just do without it. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree about shortening it. If you are under the impression that infoboxes are supposed to be short and concise, take a look at Nicolás Maduro. IMHO playing time is one of the most important characteristics distinguishing chess games (player skill, of course, the biggest). There is no comparison between a bullet chess and the games of Fischer–Spassky (1992 match). I cannot think of any other sport or game that has such a range of times of play in the orders of magnitude, but still creates exciting games filled with strategy, tactics, and suspense. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I was referring, of course, to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. If you think the infobox for Maduro is deviating from that guideline, feel free to fix it.

I am an experienced chess player, and I am familiar with the range of playing times, and it is indeed remarkable. However, you haven't made a case for a discourse on playing times in the infobox. We discuss playing times in the "Time control" subsection of the "Rules" section. If that discussion doesn't cover some ground that you have in mind, you can tinker with it, of course. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Understood. If you are considering removing the playtime field, rather keeping the discussion here, could you make a local poll in a separate section of this article and see if there is sufficient agreement? I don't think it warrants an WP:RfC at this point, but I think it would be fine to advertise such a poll in any other relevant chess articles. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The playing time discussion in the infobox is just bad. Tournament games can take much longer than 6 hours, in fact some tournament games can take more than a year (correspondence chess). Saying that games can take between 2 minutes (bullet) and 2 years (correspondence) in the infobox would be pointless and wouldn't edify the reader at all. Anything that requires a paragraph of explanation does not belong in an infobox. I don't think playing time distinguishes chess very much from other games of skill since many card games and other board games take about the same amount of time. The infobox in Nicolás Maduro is objectively terrible and is a good example of something we should not do in this article. This isn't the first discussion about the playing time in the infobox (see Talk:Chess/Archive_4#Playing_time and Talk:Chess/Archive_10#Infobox_-_((Playing_time)_field)_missing_information). Quale (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2024

Change:"The rules of chess as they are known today emerged in Europe at the end of the 15th century, with standardization and universal acceptance by the end of the 19th century. Today, chess is one of the world's most popular games, and is played by millions of people worldwide."

To:"The rules of chess as they are known today emerged in Europe at the end of the 15th century, with standardization and universal acceptance by the end of the 19th century. Today, chess is one of the world's most popular games, and is played by hundreds of millions of people worldwide." JosiahAntonini (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess your point is to change "millions" to "hundreds of millions". What is the rationale for this change? Are you quoting a particular source? Bruce leverett (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This was already discussed in Talk:Chess/Archive 11#Chess player number. Consensus was that there was insufficient support in reliable sources for "hundreds of millions". Bruce leverett (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Chess view

I'm changing, this image (in the right) presents a chessboard with a refined clarity that surpasses its predecessor. By eliminating background distractions, the photograph emphasizes the authenticity of the chess pieces, particularly the knights, which are positioned as though captured from an actual match. The standard colors of the pieces are vivid yet tasteful, enhancing the overall aesthetic without detracting from the seriousness of the game. The quality of the image itself is superior, offering a crisp, detailed view that allows for a thoughtful analysis of the game's potential complexities. Wilfredor (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this question to the talk page.

Earlier you tried to use File:Chess game Staunton No. 6.jpg. I complained about (among other things) the camera angle, so you are now using File:Chess game Staunton No. 6 perfil view 2.jpg, which is (in my opinion) a better camera angle, in that the shapes of the pieces are more obvious, and there is less occlusion (i.e. the White pawns are not so badly hidden by the White pieces).

A little history. The old illustration, File:ChessStartingPosition.jpg, was, like yours, a photo taken by the editor who submitted it. It was taken and submitted in 2008, but the editor involved is still actively editing chess-related articles, and is evidently reading this conversation.

Regarding color, I think that the black and very light wood color of the pieces in the old illustration are well chosen. The piece colors in the new illustration do not contrast as strongly with the colors of the squares, or even with each other. While low contrast is fine for a game, high contrast is (in my opinion) preferable for the purpose at hand, of illustrating the starting setup in an online article.

You refer to "background distractions" in the old photo. I am not sure what you have in mind here. I thought the pale-blue and dark-blue background in the old photo were attractive, but I do not object to your use of a plain white background. Also, there appear to be some shadows on the pale-blue background of the old photo, which are too small to see on the page, but which are noticeable when one clicks on the illustration to see a full-screen version. I do not understand what you have in mind by the "authenticity" of the chess pieces. I also do not understand your comment about the knights. They appear to be positioned the same in both photographs -- each side's knights face each other, rather than e.g. facing the opponent's knights. I should add that in the new photo, the very detailed design of the knights contrasts with the standard Staunton designs of the other pieces. This doesn't seem too important to me, but it is odd.

I am not sure what you have in mind by the "quality" of the image. Both the old and new photos are approximately the same size, and the same number of pixels, and were taken (as far as I can tell) in good focus (other readers may correct me about this). The old photo seems to have been taken from ever so slightly nearer to the board and pieces, so that they are slightly larger, with slightly less background.

Here's one more difference between the photos. In the new photo, there are rank numbers and column letters along the perimeter of the 8x8 board. Are these helpful or distracting? Of course, just a little farther down the page, we show a diagram of the starting setup, with the numbers and letters, so we don't absolutely need them in this photograph. (In fact, the diagram is all that is necessary for teaching the rules of the game; the photograph is just there for the realism and physical beauty.) I am old enough that when I learned chess, chessboards didn't come with letters and numbers, but now it's almost harder to find boards that don't have them. My curmudgeonly reaction to this is that people shouldn't need them. Oh well. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to delve into such a detailed description. Reading through your message, I was struck by a wave of nostalgia. It reminded me of my own beginnings in chess over 35 years ago, a time when chessboards were devoid of numbers and letters—unlike today’s standard. Inspired by your remarks, I captured this new photo. Notably, I appreciated your suggestion about positioning the knights outward to soften their appearance, which I've implemented. My earliest tournaments bring back memories of using similar but durable plastic pieces, although paired with a foldable board akin to a tapestry rather than the sturdy wooden pieces I’ve now come to prefer. The 21" Folding Rio Staunton Biggie Knight Ringy Rosewood 4" Chess Set represents a significant evolution in my chess equipment, more commonly seen at higher-level competitions, like the ones I encountered at the Quebec Open. I'm open to any feedback or suggestions, and please let me know if the photo seems out of place. I aim not to impose my style but to ensure we represent this intellectual sport as best as possible. Wilfredor (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Did you intend to include a photo with the above comment? Bruce leverett (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No, what makes you think about it? Maybe I said something that wasn't explained well, it's because English is not my native language. Wilfredor (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read all of the discussion above, but I have these comments about the two new photos. (1) the black pieces are way too light, (2) the lighting is very dull - it almost looks like a computer-generated image, (3) the knights are way too ornate, making it look like a set designed for display.and (4), it is not very sharp for a photo taken with a Nikon Z 7. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the lighting and the ornamentation of the knights, it's important to consider that both aspects can be quite subjective. Lighting can vary depending on multiple factors in the photography environment, and the ornamental style of the pieces might be preferred in certain types of tournaments or exhibitions. Regarding your comment on the sharpness of the photo and the capabilities of the Nikon Z 7, it might be useful to check the display settings on your computer or consider the possibility that the image was compressed when downloaded locally, which could affect its perceived quality. Additionally, you mention agreeing with Bruce below, which seems to refer to a different image. This could lead to confusion in our discussion. I suggest returning to the original image to avoid misunderstandings and provide a common basis for our evaluation. I hope these points help clarify the observations made and reach a consensus on the quality and presentation of the images. For now, I have reverted to my original image until a decision is reached here.Wilfredor (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

My comments above, dated 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC), were written after you had introduced your most recent photo, File:Chess game Staunton No. 6 perfil view 2.jpg. So when, in your reply, you said "Inspired by your remarks, I captured this new photo", I thought you referred to something even newer. But this was a misunderstanding.

Since you are a competent photographer and interested in this article and especially in this illustration in the article, I would like to see us come out of this with something that is at least as good as the original 2008 photo. But the objections raised by Bubba73 should be noted. I am particularly interested in the objection to the colors of the pieces. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Photo under Setup

I agree with Bruce leverett about the photo. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bruce comment was about this other picture: Wilfredor (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)