Talk:Rules of chess/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)