Talk:Rules of chess/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Rules of chess. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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.

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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 moved~~pawn 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:

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

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.223.67 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the source and you are right about promotion. I must have misread the source. I'll fix it later. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Error in section "Time control"

The section "Time control" currently contains the following sentence:

A game played under time control will end as a loss for a player who uses up all of their allotted time

which is not correct; compare it to article 6.9 of the chess rules: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article

[...] if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

I know, the section "Competition rules/Timing" clarifies this, but it's still confusing to have two parts of the same wikipedia article telling different things. --87.148.200.46 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I made a change - see if it is OK now. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, concerning the chess rules, this is correct.... If you want to be 100% correct, you would use a gender neutral expression instead of "his opponent" :-P --87.148.197.15 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There are always hard-to-solve problems like that. Earlier in the sentence it talks about "their time", in order to be gender neutral, but "their" is plural and the player is singular. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You say they is always plural? What's this: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/they

Definition of they

pronoun

[third person plural]

1.: used to refer to two or more people or things previously mentioned or easily identified: the two men could get life sentences if they are convicted

people in general: the rest, as they say, is history

informal people in authority regarded collectively: they cut my water off

2.: [singular] used to refer to a person of unspecified sex: ask a friend if they could help

I think there's no reason not to make the sentence read: A game played under time control will end as a loss for a player who uses up all of their allotted time, unless their opponent cannot possibly checkmate them --87.148.197.15 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Footnote pointers

Footnotes elsewhere seem to be less verbose, typically just a number, with the content in the footnote. In this article the footnote pointers seem excessively long. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the author/date Parenthetical referencing? That is a standard method. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

insufficient material

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White has been checkmated. The black king can also be on c1 and the black bishopcan be anywhere on the b2 to g7 diagonal.

So “king against king and bishop” is a draw, but “king and bishop against king and bishop” is a draw only “ with both bishops on diagonals of the same color”. To the non-expert reader the need for the condition is far from obvious. JDAWiseman (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is correct, since a checkmate is possible if there is a bishop on the other side on the opposite color, but not if the bishops are on the same color. I'll try to clarify it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So presumably I can be checkmated if my own bishop is somehow (and stupidly) trapping my king. That isn’t obvious to the non-expert (meaning me), and hence worthy of more explanation. JDAWiseman (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see the diagram. I added a little more, but I doubt that the article should be crowded up with a diagram. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?}

I added a link to an article that shows that type of position. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Knocking over the king

"Tipping over the king also indicates resignation, but it is not frequently used"

Tipping over the king is sometimes used as a symbolic accompaniment to resignation. It does not constitute resignation and has no significance in the official rules of chess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.64.89 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A very good point, IMO. (Why not just change the text?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The FIDE rules don't say anything about it but the USCF rules do. USCF Rule 13B says "Saying 'I resign' or tipping over the king are relatively clear ways to resign." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx for looking that up. Perhaps a distinction in the text is desirable. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'll never use my expensive wood set in a tournament if is acceptable to knock it over! Let alone a delicate Staunton carved ivory set. This USCF rule seems to stem from olden times. (Yuk.)

Years ago I used to always do that. I quit doing it. I use House of Staunton wood sets. (In fact, the two pictured there are mine.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are the nicest sets! Knocking over a K could also ding an expensive wood board. I've never seen any player knock over a king (except in the movies). (I've seen a player pick the K up in his hand and carefully lay it on the board on its side, however.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC) p.s. I've never felt the urge to knock over a K -- only the urge to throw it across the room. (I wonder how USCF would rule that? Hehe.)

I think I have seen people knock over the king, but I can't recall any particular one. One of the games in the US Women's championship a few years ago ended with one of the players (Krush, I think) knocking pieces across the room. I also have one of the not-too-expensive sets (a few hundred US$) from Jaques of London, and they seem about the same as the HoS sets that cost a few hundred US$. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer insisted on (and got) a Jaques of London set for the 1972 Championship. I remember reading about that Krush incident, but wasn't that removed from the article as unverifiable? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC) In Star Trek episode "Charlie X", Charlie melts the chess pieces using his mental powers at frustration to losing to Mr. Spock. I wonder if that is acceptable as resignation too. Hehe.

Here is video of Krush. I don't think that would count as a resignation since I think her time had expired. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)