Talk:Rules of chess

Ordered lists

I notice that while the ordered lists display fine in Opera 5.12, in Internet Explorer 5.50 the numbers are simply omitted. It must have something to do with the left-aligned tables. Does anyone have any insight into this problem? --Fritzlein

forced mate?

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

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

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

No my point is that it is not a rule, and you admitted that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

it's a definition that isn't being covered anywhere and directly pertains to the definition of checkmate. ok bubba thinks it will be the end of the world. what does everyone ELSE think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdude2000 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if by forced mate you are referring to what happens usually at the endgame where you chase the opponent's king until it is finally cornered. If that is the case, it is not a rule. Other than that, Forced mate redirects to Checkmate, where it is used to refer to the act of achieving checkmate in a certain number of moves (and not as a fixed concept, but simply using forced as an adjective of mate). Such treatment is valid in that article, but there's really nothing to be said about it rule-wise - frankie (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

To be fair, I was able to reverse most of his additions. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Seems that both Quale and Scottdude2000 need to assume good faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe both are acting in good faith. However, one of them is basing his edits on what he thinks he remembers from a 1995 computer game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Quale's rollbacks

I make small edits: you freak out. I make big edits: you freak out and torch em all in one swift move. did you want me to make big edits so you could eliminate them more quickly? btw you also just killed other people's edits who agreed with the pins check paragraph. it's a rule. it has to be included in the rules of chess. this is a non negotiable. you didn't even state your case against the edits on the talk page.Scottdude2000 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at this edit by Scottdude2000 makes me think that many of the changes do not improve the original. The talk about "a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio" for a knight would not be clear to someone who needed to read the article, and I doubt if similar language is used in any standard "rules of chess". Extra words sometimes simply introduce confusion, although each case needs examination. I would say that adding "In official play" for the discussion of castling is unhelpful: "one hand" is the rule and if people choose to ignore it during unofficial play, that is their business (or, if warranted, a section on unofficial play might be added). Likewise, the extra words for "in check" don't seem to help. By contrast, removing "if doing so would not leave the king in check" seems unhelpful: yes, it is redundant, but it adds clarity. The original "Check" section is more clear. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Conciseness is necessary in encyclopedias, especially in paper encyclopedias. Just because Wikipedia isn't one doesn't mean we should be as concise as possible. The manual of style should be consulted by Scottdude2000.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

let me take this in parts:

• listen I know there is a conciseness issue on the knight thing. BELIEVE me I know haha. here's my thing: some of the finer points of chess are difficult to convey verbally without writing a gigantic paragraph. I think we saw that clearly when we added the section on check and pins. while anyone here could read the bullets on knights and completely understand it I don't feel like the language lent itself to a beginner at all. two steps and a 90 degree turn? the knight moves two squares like a rook then one square perpendicular to that? The knight moves to the nearest square not on the same rank, file, and diagonal square? I left some of it in because I didn't want to get accused of deleting too much. but if we really wanted to be as concise as possible while being clear enough for a newbie to understand I'd say we should kill all of it and only use the 2:1 ratio. L7 illustration. I don't think we should use two analogies let alone three and if the user is consulting the rules on piece movements I don't think it's safe to assume they have the rook concept down to the point that they can interchange the two images in their heads and work it all out on their own. this is the main thrust of my problem with this article. it's written like a technical manual. sometimes it's overly redundant. other times it's vague assuming the person reading understands what's going on. this isn't a safe assumption I think. as far as the 2:1 1:2 ratio thing is the clearest way I could think of (along with the L and 7 shapes) to explain a complicated idea to a beginner. it's simple. A knight moves either 2X and 1Y or 1X and 2Y. no need to introduce two or three ideas to illustrate this. I think if we just changed it to that and the L7 thing we'd be good.
• On the "in official play" comment: the article has a separate section for competition rules. while this isn't written in stone, the rest of the article has the sense of assuming that these rules of chess are being exercised in a somewhat less formal setting. how two people decide in their homes of local coffee bean to regulate a game of chess is totally up to them. maybe we should just move the whole thing to the official play section?
• idk what you mean by "the extra words in check". do you mean the paragraph on pins and check?
• I took out "if doing so in check because you can literally add that aside to every sentence in the check section including all the check bullet points. the section makes it clear once at the top and again in the pins paragraph that you must absolutely never leave your king in check (only where it is necessary). but if we add it there theres no reason not to add it in a bunch of other places. actually now that I think about it you can add that to every sentence in the whole article haha. bear in mind that before my original edits that section says not to place or leave your king in check like 3 times. this was the last of what was too much redundancy IMHO. Scottdude2000 (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2:1 ratio and L7 thing is not accurate. For example, this could mean that a knight on h1 could move to f5 in one move, which it can't. Personally, I prefer 2 squares along a rank/file, and one square to the direct side of that. Also, please remember Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

wait do you mean the language could be seen as a double entendre since it never says you can't move twice? well I could put a line in there that says you may only move it once but at that point I think it's too much... damn I wanted to clarify the flow of thought there so bad. oh well. I'll revert that section back. thanks for catching that jasper. thanks for the note on the how to thing. In the future I'll try to hold a balance between accessibility and informational dissemination.Scottdude2000 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback suggestion

Comparing this old version with this current version, it seems to me that a lot of the additions are written in a colloquial, informal style that is not well suited to an encyclopedia. However, I do think that the motivation (clarification) behind at least some of the edits is a sound one. One possible way out of the current situation is that you rollback the article to the the earlier version above, and then scottdude2000 to propose specific language changes, areas that need clarification, etc. and work on each one separately. You need to have a plan in place for when the article is unprotected otherwise this will just go on forever. What do you all think?--rgpk (comment) 20:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

While I wasn't intending a colloquial feel I can see how you got that from some of what I wrote. you're right it has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd be fine with rolling it back to a version that includes the note on pins and check (at the very least the last one with anthony's earliest rewrite even though I think that one is a bit rough around the edges) since it's a rule. If you guys want me to propose the separate language changes section by section I will do so. But I'm not aiming for the weirdly legalistic technical manual we had originally. I think we need to strike a balance between technical manual and colloquial. I think that middle is called being informative. Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Some of Scottdude2000's are intended to improve the wording. But his addition of the section on forks had nothing to do with the rules. Similarly, the part he added on pins was mostly beside the point and long and rambling. His change of the three ways to get out of check to the really convoluted version was inaccurate. His version of the knight move is inaccurate because it isn't just any 2:1 or 1:2 ratio or any L or 7 shape. So I think it is best to revert to the version before he started editing, change it back to semi-protected, and discuss wording changes on the talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

bubba. hit command F (or apple F or control F) and search for the word fork. it does not appear in the entire article. you're rehashing something old and irrelevant to this discussion. it's necessary to cover that a pinned piece can still check. that's unquestionably a rule. and my change to the check section is actually shorter than the original and also lacking all the redundancies that the original had. but the knight thing I can see rolling back (but the L or 7 shape came directly from the earlier version so take that up with whoever put it in there).Scottdude2000 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the recent revert

Sorry, I was away for the weekend so couldn't respond earlier. This revert has numerous problems.

1. I agree that the old description of the knight move can and should be improved, but as pointed out by several people this edit is inaccurate so we can't use it. "Another way of putting it is: the knight moves in a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio horizontally then vertically in that respective order."--absolutely wrong. This would allow a move of four squares horizontally followed by two squares vertically, or six and three. It would be too verbose and convoluted even if correct (especially considering the rest of the added material I didn't quote here). I welcome discussion of how we can actually improve the explanation of the knight move. The official rule is just what our first sentence says: "The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal." This is probably the shortest accurate description of the move, but I think it's a little hard for a beginner to understand.
2. The changed language for the pawn move is also incorrect. "No pawn can move any further than the vacancy directly in front of itself."—Nope. On the first move a pawn may advance two squares, which is not the vacancy directly in front of itself. Also language was removed that clarifies that pawns can only move forward. The edit left this quite ambiguous, as any backward or sideways move would seem to be allowed as it would not violate the "any further than the vacancy directly in front" requirement. Other language was removed that points out that pawns are the only pieces that capture differently than they move; this is a helpful note for beginners. I agree that the description of the pawn move should be improved, but this wasn't an improvement. Perhaps we should look to staying closer to the language used in the Laws of Chess.
3. "In official play" added to the castling section is just extra verbosity. These are the laws of chess; they all apply to official play. No source was provided that the rule is different for "unofficial play". It's true that the rule against simultaneously moving the king and rook is often ignored, especially in casual or blitz play, but I'm not sure that's important here.
4. The changes to the check section are a mess too. "The definition of check is that one or more opposing pieces could theoretically capture the king on the next move (although the king is never actually captured)."—Not true. You can see the actual definition of check at http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article, section 3.9. There is no mention of "capture" anywhere in the definition of check. Trying to use this explanation causes confusion on several levels. Perhaps the biggest problem is that a piece pinned against the king can give check, even though the rules would not allow it to move and hence capture the opposing king. My edit made this section shorter and accurate, although I'm certain it can be improved. Removal of the brief clarification that capturing the checking piece must leave the king no longer in check is perhaps OK. It's covered in the other requirements so it is isn't required to explicitly point this out, but sometimes a little redundancy can make the rules easier to understand.
5. The edit to the draw section, "The game is immediately drawn due to insufficient material when one of the following endings arises (presuming there are no pawns, rooks, or queens remaining in play):" is wrong yet again. The actual rule can be found in section 5.2b: "The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’." Notice that "insufficient material" is not in the rule, and in fact insufficient material is not a requirement. The example endgames given in the article are insufficient material as there is no way for any position with those pieces to ever allow checkmate. By contrast a dead position draw includes more possibilities because it can occur when there is enough material to checkmate but the position does not make this possible. Typically this happens in closed positions with locked pawn chains.
6. The edit to draw by agreement adds an unnecessary word ("may") that makes the sentence not make sense in context. "The game ends in a draw if any of these conditions occur: ... * Both players may agree to a draw after one of the players makes such an offer." Huh? The sentence was correct before: the game ends in a draw if both players agree. Not the game ends in a draw if both players may agree to a draw.
7. The edit to the 50-move rule is a wording change that isn't especially objectionable but I don't think it improves the article. "fifty moves have been played by each player without any capture or a pawn being movedpawn advancement." I suppose the change might be preferred because it's a little more direct (one word for three), but replacing "being moved" by "advancement" just seems to make it sound a little more complicated to me.

Quale (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I support your changes; thanks for taking the time to explain the issues so clearly. Johnuniq (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your revert and all seven points. On #7, pawn advancement seems to say a move and not a capture, but it applies to a capture too. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

knight move

I also don't like the wording of the knight move in the official rules. I prefer to say that it moves two squares horrizontally or vertically (forwards or back) and one square perpendicular to that. Leave out 2:1 ratio, L or 7 shape. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Staunton (1847) has an appropriate quote: "The action of the Knight is peculiar, and not easy to describe." I looked at the FIDE website and some books and found the following descriptions of the knight move:

1. Nearest square not on the same rank and file
2. One square along the same rank or file followed by one square diagonally away from original position
3. Two squares along the same rank or file followed by one square perpendicular
4. From one corner to the diagonally opposite corner of a 2 square by 3 square rectangle
5. L-shaped

The only place I've seen #1 is in the official laws as published by FIDE, probably because it's a bit opaque.

Staunton (1847), Harkness (Official Bluebook, 1956 and other years), and Golombek (basically quoting Harkness) give #2.

Tarrasch (1931, 1935) and Lasker (1947) give #3. We have this now, but substitute "90°" for "perpendicular". I think perpendicular is better.

Burgess and Hooper & Whyld give #4. One advantage of this description is that it is more explicit showing that the knight doesn't pass through any intermediate squares but alights directly on its target square.

The L-shape description is never given as the only definition, but is sometimes provided as additional explanation.

I suppose we should give the official FIDE definition first. Then we can pick some or all of the rest, although I wouldn't include #5 alone without at least one other better description from 2 through 4. It might also help our readers to note that the knight always lands on a square of the opposite color than it currently occupies. Maybe something like,

The L-shaped move of the knight can be described in several equivalent ways, including

• [bulleted list of items #2 through #4].

Quale (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it should say that the knight jumps to that square, however it is described to make it clear that the knight doesn't have to move over the squares (either 2 and 1 perpendicular or 1 orthogonal and 1 diagonal). Some young people briefly put the knight on two intermediate squares when moving it. The L shape can be confusing. At a tournament where I was an assistant director last year (I think), one young player asked me if the knight could move like a lowercase L. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It is supposed to be easy if you think of ${\sqrt {5}}$... Of the enumerated definitions I think #2 is the clearest and easiest to understand, although I myself generally think in terms of #3. The Laws of Chess [1] uses #1, and is very unambiguous, but it requires a bit of thinking to deduce what those moves look like. Of course, the diagram helps a lot here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally support the avoidance of mathematical and geometrical concepts like orthogonal, perpendicular, ratio, L-shaped etc. We broadly teach movement in terms of 'rank' and 'file', so if we can describe things in this way then we are reinforcing important principles and not excluding the non-mathematicians. A book I have on general indoor games gives a long-winded(?) description, but it covers all the elements (forwards, backwards, hopping over etc.) and follows the rank and file system. - Knights can advance or retreat and the movement across the squares can be two along the rank and one up (or down) a file, or one along the rank and two up (or down) the file. It should be remembered that knights are the only piece on the board that are allowed to hop over other pieces - and this applies to your own or those of your opponent. - Brittle heaven (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Although rank and file have been introduced earlier in the article, I'd rather avoid those terms when trying to describe the move of the knight to someone who might not know it. I'd rather say horizontal and vertical or left, right, up, and down. I think it should describe it in two ways. I favor #3, but I don't think of anything like that when playing - I just know where it goes. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some readers will understand best one definition, and other readers will understand best another definition, depending on their respective background. So maybe we should put several definitions, explaining their are equivalent, to cover different categories of readers ? SyG (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pawn movement

We are having an argument tin my household regarding pawn movements and referring to this article has not entirely cleared up the matter. This article states that the pawn may move two squares on its first move. My companions insist that his is only true for the first pawn to move. If I am right, please update the article to state that EACH pawn may move two squares on its first move. If I am wrong, please update the article to read that only the FIRST pawn my move two squares on its first move. ErinHowarth (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Each pawn has the option of moving two squares on its first move. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see what the rationale would be for only the first pawn to move to have that option. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

All pawns may move two squares on their first move. One line might be the Maroczy Bind, 1.e4 e5 2.c4.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Identifying squares

Hello Chess-friends!

I have been improving this article at portuguese wikipedia and I found some minor problems that I'd like to check with you guys. Why you have a section just in the beginning of the article named as "Identifying squares"? 1) If you check at fide handbook it doesn't mention that square should be identified. 2) althought algebric notation is official for FIDE tournaments, it's not necessary to know any notation system to learn basic rules. 3)There are other notation systems, so if you really want to mention I think it's worth to say it's just an example or that algebric was adopted because FIDE did it too.4) Of course it's important mention notation system but "recording moves" section it's okay for that. Regards!OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It probably should be moved down,since you can play without identifying the squares. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wont't fix the article because my english is too simple. I'm just pointing what I think it can be improved. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking that either the "identifying the squares" section should be removed or replaced with one about chess notation (or recording moves). Recording the moves is required in competition (except for fast games), so it is sort of a rule. On the other hand, you can play chess without it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe merge "identifying the squares" section with "recording moves" section solves the problem. Capablanca scoresheet it's not helpful and could be replaced by a chessboard with identified squares. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, so I did it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Castling

"The king and the rook must be on the same rank". I think it's quite obvious since it's sated that they shouldn't be moved before.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See note #3. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry, but I didn't understand. Per note #1 king and rook must not being moved before so, they are always in the same rank before castle. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Note #3 explains it. Without that restriction, under the old statement of the rule, a pawn could be promoted on the e-file to a rook and it could castle with the king. That was pointed out about 30 years ago and FIDE added that to the rules. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Now I get it! Thanks! :)OTAVIO1981 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

See also

According to guideline WP:SEEALSO, in general an item s/ not be in 'See also' if it is already linked in the article body, and as a result the best documented articles on WP many times don't even have a 'See also' section. Can the 'See also' section be shaved down in the article, or is it consensus that the article is exception to that guideline? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The guideline also says to use editorial judgement and common sense. I think the articles that are in the see also section are very helpful - if the reader is looking for particular articles or rules, it will be easier to find them there than read through the article until you find it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

History

In the first paragraph of the history section, I noticed that it states that a pawn could not be promoted after reaching its eighth rank. From what I gathered from the history of chess section, it could at least be promoted to a queen (general).

I also think that the few references to arab and persian versions of the game (shatranj) should be replaced with references to Chaturanga instead as it is the original precursor of modern day chess.