Talk:Chess/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ratings

I think there should be a section about how players are rated and how a player becomes a master, international master, and a grandmaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.72.22 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2006.

Indeed that's a good idea. Unfortunately I do not know enough of the subject myself. Anyone up to it? --ZeroOne 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You should probably ask someone who is interested to get one of the titles abovedark matter 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup done

Cleanup done. See User:Samboy/Chess_zapped to see what information I removed from the article when cleaning it up. Samboy 13:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the contents, the word is spelled "orgin" instead of "origin", but I have fixed it. Gagueci

Getting rid of POV

The user Roylee, which up until recently was using ips (see This IP's contributions), keeps on trying to put in his POV that Chess originated in China, not India, and that there is real evidence for this. Here are two edits where he tried inserting this POV: [1] [2]

The first time, I got rid of all of this information when I was doing a general cleanup of the article. The second time, I just reverted the change.

To be fair, the second edit was not nearly as strong of a POV as the first edit. That said, I feel that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (see item 3) and we don't need to humour non-mainstream theories about the origins of Chess on a featured article. Historians have been saying Chess came from India for a long time now; people from China have been trying to argue that it really came from China for a long time now but the evidence doesn't point that way.

I'm going to put this up over at Wikipedia:Requests for comment to see if we can get some consensus. Samboy 13:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with Roylee. See Talk:Origins_of_chess. Samboy 11:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clean up?

I think you were bit too keen there, Samboy - some of the removed stuff is quite interesting! Do you mind if I put a few bits back? Dan100 21:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. I certainly hope I'm not coming off as a contentous editor who is trying to own this page! The only reason I reverted the bit about Chess' history is because I really don't think you can say that Chess started in China. Samboy 21:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I gave Shannon number it's own page using the old material, took out the line about chess's origin in the very first section (as the rest of that bit seemed purely a description of the game and I couldn't see the point in the line when it was explained in more depth later), put in a new section heading "Modern Chess" and made a link to origin of chess immeadiately before it, and popped that little part about the 'harder for computers' variation back. That bit could be an interesting bit of extra reading for those so inclined (like me!). You did a good job on the clean-up in general though, Samboy. Dan100 22:41, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

It looks good. I actually didn't like removing the section on Arimaa, but felt I had to clean things up. So, yeah, it's nice to have that section back again. Samboy 02:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link Removed

I removed the following link inserted by an IP:

• [3]- The home of Scottish Chess on the Web

Reason: I don't think we should have every single national chess club listed here. The place for this link is on the Scottish Chess Championship page, where, indeed, the link is already present.

"Chess" from the Persian word "Shah"?

Question: How far back in time is a word's etymology significant?

Example: Yes, "chess" derives from "shah," but "shah derives from the Old Persian "khshathra", meaning "king."

Therefore: Shouldn't your article say, "Chess (from the Old Persian word khshathra)...," instead?

ANSWER: Of course not! But ...

Logical Points:

1. Read Etymology for more information (i.e., the example provided on that specific page for the word Go (verb)).

2. If person A says, "candy," and person B subsequently says, "cookie," and person C responds to person B's statement by finally saying, "rookie," then the etymology for "rookie" would be as follows: rookie: cookie, originally from candy.

3. In this example, the above is correct. It would be incorrect to say: rookie: from candy.

4. This is because person C said "rookie" only as a consequence of person B saying "cookie" and not because person A said "candy."

5. Referring to an authority on the subject: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: chess. The correct etymology of "chess" is "Middle English ches, from Middle French esches."

I came here from the Request for Comment you made. Obviously, you can't trace the etymology back the beginning of the world! Anyway, if this helps, here's the etymology for Spanish 'jaque', being the cognate (?) for 'chess' (but the name of the game in spanish is 'ajedrez', 'jaque' is when you threaten the opposite's king and 'jaque mate' is 'chess mate').

My dictionary says: From arabic šâh and this from persian šâh (remember this is for spanish)--Neigel von Teighen 18:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, the Oxford Companion to Chess, in its "Etymology" entry, states that the English "chess" comes from the French "esches" and "escas". This, and virtually all other European words for the game, come from the Arabic "shah", for king. Notable exceptions are the Spanish "ajedrez" and the Portuguese "xadrez" which derive from the Arabic name for the actual game, "ash-shatranj". How all this should be represented in our article, I don't know. I just thought I'd mention it. --Camembert

Then, it's easy: The etymology tracing can be: 'Chess < fr. esches/escas < ar. shâh, and this borrowed from persian.' It's a good idea and it reamains NPOV (I'm using the filological apparatus here, the < means 'developed from'). --Neigel von Teighen 14:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Origin of chess

• I think that every possible theory should be included, or we break NPOV standards. --Ryan! | Talk 13:25, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

You're right. Then, we've got Ches v/s šâh (shah), let's discuss this and interchange ideas! --Neigel von Teighen 18:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Heh - I don't think you realize how many theories there are, but every major current theory certainly.

Why? There is already a specific page explaining the origins of chess. Dan100 21:59, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Computer Chess

The point or fairness of comparing a human player to a computer program becomes ridiculous and merely a marketing tool for the computer manufacturer, and a source of publicity and income for the volunteer chess player. Unless the games become timed on a speed equivalent basis, they remain absurd, as the computer should either be given 1 microsecond to make its move, and the human player be given 1 day, because that is how long it takes both to calculate 100,000 positions.

I'm removing the entire above paragraph as POV. Whether it's fair or ridiculous is purely POV. Also, time to calculate 100,000 positions is irrelevant, because human chess algorithms and human hardware are totally different from computer chess algorithms and computer hardware. --Prosfilaes 03:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good work. What I first took to be an innocent editorial mistake by a newcomer is now appearing to be a tasteless obsession. The responsible editor is countermanding our work in a neverending manner and spiting against our every word of constructive advice. Vigilance will be required. --BadSanta

--Gunter 16:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) The text has been modified as such:

The computer's speed advantage and the timing of the games to never give the human equal processing time make the outcomes moot should the computer win. The highly publicised computer-human games are publicity stunts by the hardware manufacturers.

BadSanta, since you are unable to point out what you think is not factual but opinion in my two sentences, let me try for you:

1. You are unaware that computers are faster than humans?

2. You are unaware that companies like IBM are using these games to promote their corporate image?

Spare me your terse useless comments and inane warnings, instead tell me clearly how you cannot comprehend these two facts and why you keep removing them? They are a perfectly valid addition to the article, they are factual. Wikipedia is a community, this Chess article is not your baby.

Stop fighting! Is there any reason to delete that text? I don't see any POV, but only facts (maybe I'm wrong). Stay cool and don't let this go into an edit war. --Neigel von Teighen 17:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The proper scope of this article is not be to engage in speculation about the motives of corporate hardware manufacturers to host computer-human contests. Furthermore, an accusation against them for purely engaging in "publicity stunts" instead of "advancing AI" is inappropriate.

Your assessment of the advantages computers have against human opponents is not altogether factless yet your conclusions are imbalanced to the extreme and incomplete as you totally ignore the compensating advantages top, well-trained human players have against computers. [In my studied opinion, this article is definitely not the proper place for a thorough explanation of such difficult-to-define, psychological and human learning details, however.]

How do you reconcile the facts that Kramnik fought Deep Fritz to a draw in 2003 and Kasparov fought Deep Junior and X3D Fritz to draws in 2004 with your assessment? Your original write-up was so salacious, one must have drawn the conclusion that it is impossible for ANY human to compete against top chess supercomputers and programs yet the best human players at their best ... still do.

Please read, think and learn a lot more about what you seek to write with authority. --BadSanta

You're right: Kramnik (I saw that live through Internet. What a match!) and Kasparov did it, but not anyone can. These are super-trained and professional chess players and I can assure you that I could never beat such a machine. Obviously, this fact shows that there's no place for the word 'impossible', maybe 'very difficult'. About publicity, we agree, that can't be in the article. --Neigel von Teighen 18:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--Gunter 18:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)It is not speculation as to why e.g. IBM made Deep Blue, to promote IBM hardware, but ignorance on your part to think they did it for some greater glory of furthering AI (which they did not). IBM saw a marketing opportunity and took it, that is what they do.

The matches are speed biased. The computer program failing to win only shows the inadequacies of the programmers ability. If both computer and human used the exact same logic for playing, the computer would always win, due to it's speed. So as i pointed out, unless the computer is limited to the same number of moves it can calculate as the human, what are you proving? The obvious, that computers are faster than humans?

Since the current section on Computer Chess implies some amazing feat in computers beating humans at chess, i would like this balanced to give a more realistic view of this.

Now I understand your point about publicity. But, i don't think it should be placed here. Perhaps the IBM article is a better place. This is about chess and not about publicity in chess. The point to discuss here is if we should include the speed fact (I would). --Neigel von Teighen 19:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If computers and humans used the exact same logic for playing, it would depend on the logic. If humans tried to play chess the way a computer does, the human would get squashed. But you seriously underestimate the power of the wetware the human has; just because it doesn't multiply fast, doesn't mean it's not powerful. Humans do pattern-matching stunts that computers can't even come close to, and given the amount of neural matter devoted to those problems, it's like humans are much, much faster than computers at those problems. A human can look at a board and see whether it's a good situation or not without really looking at any future moves, and defintely without doing an exhaustive multiply search, where a computer would be forced to check out the decision tree to make the same judgement. If a computer tried to play chess the way a human does, it couldn't beat the elementary school chess champ. Human wetware and computer hardware are in no ways isomorphic, and comparisons that claim that they are are unrealistic.

IBM is a publically owned corporation; its sole ultimate goal is money. While the researchers who worked on the machine understood that it was a publicity stunt, it was also an important study as to where computers stood against the best in the world. --Prosfilaes 22:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Dan100 22:05, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Is there somewhere a record of games Hydra has played against other top computer chess programs? I see a new paragraph on Hydra on the main page that claims that it has beaten other programs with "relative ease". I know about one top GM (Michael Adams) that Hydra has beaten to date. Is this history sufficient to claim that it "would be expected to beat any human player in match play"? -- Rajesh 29 June 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Well, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydra_%28chess%29

Basically it has killed Shredder (computer chess champion), and annihilated Adams at 2732. And based on the results, its hardware and the depth of search we can get a pretty fair idea of the ELO rating. It's looking like it's comfortably above 2900; which would mean it would beat Kasparov. And it's very probably stronger than Deep Blue; it has greater search depth. And Deep Blue beat Kasparov...

Of course just because we expect it to do something, doesn't mean it will :-) WolfKeeper

Thanks. Hopefully, Hydra will play enough games this year so we can see if it is able to sustain the 2900 level of play against other top 10 GMs -- Rajesh 29 June 2005 20:08 (UTC)

The paragraph on Hydra is basically entirely factually wrong. The program has no relation to Deep Blue. Different design, different programmers, even different hardware structure (ASIC vs FPGA). Hydra analyses a peak of 36M positions per second, vs. an *average* of 120M and peak of 1G for Deep Blue.

Do you have a reference for that? Here IBM claim just 100M: ::http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/meet/html/d.3.1.html ?WolfKeeper

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2462 "However Hydra Scylla is five times faster than the previous version, which "only" calculated about 40 millions moves per second." So on raw positions per second Hydra is 2x as fast; and IMHO probably has a newer and presumably better evaluation algorithm.WolfKeeper

"the relative ease with which it beats the other programs, and the humans it has me" is also entirely wrong. Hydra/Brutus did badly in all the computer chess world championships it played, and now refuses to participate, only playing in arranged matches. It lost the open event organised on the ChessBase server, and regularly loses matches it plays there. These are all verifyable facts unlike the nonsenset the current paragraph states.

Vote

I see that we have a revert war going on over whether the following paragraph should be included in the Computer Chess section of this article:

The computer's speed advantage and the timing of the games to never give the human equal processing time make the outcomes moot should the computer win. The highly publicised computer-human games are publicity stunts by the hardware manufacturers.

The vote is this: Should the above paragraph be included in the article. The four possible answers are: Yes, No, Abstain, and Other (it should be included, but in a different form). So, let the voting begin.

Yes

No

1. Far too much POV Samboy 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. Not encyclopaedic, though I don't see POV. --Neigel von Teighen 00:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
3. Poorly-balanced facts admixed with emotional, extreme opinions. -- BadSanta
   • --Gunter 12:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)poorly balanced? i'm trying to balance the article that is already there with it's biased opinion. You keep raving about opinion, are you sure you know the difference between fact and opinion?
4. Some reference to processing speed is valid, but this is not well presented -- and the use of "moot" is just silly. Perhaps, after the current first paragraph of the "Computer chess" section, and as a lead-in to the recounting of recent matches, we could add something like: "In the 1940s [or was it the 1950s?], Mikhail Botvinnik suggested that a computer capable of playing at grandmaster level would have to be as large as the University of Moscow. The performance of the best chess-playing computers has improved as the programming has become more sophisticated (with the aid of some human grandmasters, such as ____ [I think Joel Benjamin has been a consultant]), and as more powerful mainframes have increased the number of computations that can be performed in a given time." As for the question of corporate motives, I think the price of IBM stock went up after Kasparov's loss; if so, that could mentioned as an interesting sidelight to the reference to that match. JamesMLane 02:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   • --Gunter 12:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)That should be a yes or other vote since you agree with both my points.
     • No, I don't agree with your wholesale disparagement of the meaningfulness of the human-versus-computer matches, and I don't agree with including unattributed speculation about corporate motives. It would be better to have nothing than to have the paragraph we were asked to vote on. My suggested language is an attempt to bridge the gap, by including facts (grandmaster involvement in programming, IBM stock price movement) and properly attributed opinions (Botvinnik's). I was trying to address the subjects you raised but to do so in an encylopedic manner. Does my suggested language seem OK to you (subject to confirming facts and filling in gaps)? It would be better if we could work out consensus language than to just decide something by a vote in the poll. JamesMLane 19:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
5. No, because it's entirely possible that the human has more processing power. To the extent that we don't know the results of any given contest, it's not moot. Is there any point in just saying the contests are for publicity purposes? Pretty much everything of the sort is, to some extent or another. --Prosfilaes 06:51, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
6. For all of the reasons above. Dan100 22:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
7. Human "processing power" is such a vague quantity; I expect we'll have to make significant advances in cognitive science before we can even begin to make a meaningful comparison. Until then, any estimate of human brain-time spent attacking a problem is a Meaningless Indicator of Processor Speed. As long as we're trying to reference other people's opinions, I should note that Raymond Kurzweil's The Age of Spiritual Machines advocates the position that, empirically speaking, chess tournaments demonstrate that machines are already doing things which we once thought only humans could do. In other words, he accepts the validity of the demonstration, regardless of IBM's motives. Furthermore, as added trivia, in Bruce Pandolfini's "blow-by-blow" account of the tournament, he quips at the last move, "The Black King looks pale. It's time to buy IBM stock." —Anville 00:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abstain

1. What exactly would one put in here? If I intend to abstain, surely I don't have an opinion to add.

Other

1. I would like it added (obviously), but reworded so as to conform to Wikipedia's standards.--Gunter 00:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Note- Now our dear boy is arguing with the votes he doesn't like.

• I have no problem with that, as long as it doesn't mess up the tally, so I've reformatted. Also, I suggest that everyone refrain from comments like "our dear boy". Let's stick to the issues. JamesMLane 19:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NO! Vote by Brendenhull.

Arimaa

The article as it now stands implies that there are several chess variants which computers play poorly relative to humans. I know of none other than Arimaa. Can anyone name a few, and give evidence for their intractability to comptuers? The $10,000 prize money for Arimaa insures that real programmers are actually trying and failing, which probably isn't the case for other variants, but I'm curious about even minimal evidence to the effect that new variants are being spawned in which human intelligence dominates. Thanks. --Fritzlein 01:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are at least a few AI experts here as editors who may have furthergoing valuable, detailed input than I. However, I can tell you that the unrivalled intractability and theoretical depth of Arimaa is attributable mainly to its turn-order based upon each player having 4 moves per turn.

The vast majority of chess variants, likewise to standard FIDE chess, allow only 1 move per turn per player. Nonetheless, a small minority of chess variants (such as the well-known Marseillais chess as well as the games in the Symmetrical Chess Collection) allow 2 moves per turn per player. There are probably a few others somewhere in the large literature of over 1000 chess variants. Perhaps, there is even another game(s) where 3 or 4 moves per turn per player are allowed. As a general rule, the theoretical depth at 1 move per turn is exponential time complete, at 2 moves per turn is hyper-exponential time complete, etc.

--BadSanta

I've played with writing a DragonChess game on my own time. It's a 3d variant of chess with 84 pieces and 288 squares. I may not count as a "real" programmer, and I would not be entirely surprised if there were some fatal weaknesses that showed up after greater processing, but it seems a lot more complex for the computer. Moving the number of moves at the start from 10 to over a hundred seems to make it a lot harder for the computer to process.

All of which is unsubstantiated, original research. YMMV. --Prosfilaes 07:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think in Xiangqi and Shogi the best human player is still better then the best computer program, due to higher game-tree complexity. However it is predicted that by year 2010 this will change, see Computer Shogi. Other chess variants, which can be difficult for computers are Dark Chess or Kriegspiel, as they are games with incomplete information and require more startegical planning and some psychological reasoning then deep move searching. Andreas Kaufmann 07:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the other examples. It's hard for me to judge how unique Arimaa is. Is a sufficiently large game-tree complexity all that is necessary for humans to excel relative to computers? Intuitively not. As a gamer I expect that a game must also contain strategic themes that the human mind can grasp. For example, if pawns in chess could move backwards, I expect that it would increase game-tree complexity, but also make computers even more dominant over humans, since it would remove a strategic point from the game. And isn't the endgame, with its reduced game-tree complexity, exactly the area of chess where humans are still unambiguously better that computers?

My hunch is that Arimaa simply a brilliantly-designed game. I could probably make a new game tomorrow with ten times the game-tree complexity of Arimaa, yet have it be hideously intractible to humans relative to computers. It isn't clear to me that human intelligence is such that a large playing field is all that is necessary to excel. --Fritzlein 14:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) [4]

The endgame of Chess is one of the few completely analyzed parts of Chess. At one time, it was thought that 50 moves without capture would never change the fate of a well-played game; computers proved that there are certain endgames (K+R versus K, IIRC) that can won if there was no such limit. If there are five or fewer pieces on the board, then a computer can play perfect Chess, using Ken Thompson's tables. King, rook and bishop beats a king and two knights in 223 moves by computer analysis. (First article in the Risks digest)

You reduce the game-tree complexity enough, and computers can quickly become unbeatable. There used to be a paper on the web by the solver of Connect-4 listing the major games and how computers were doing on them. If you sorted them by game-tree complexity, nothing with a higher game-tree complexity than Chess had a contender for the world title, and everything with a lower game-tree complexity had computers the permeanant holder of the World Master.

It's true that upping the game-tree complexity generally makes it more intractable to humans. But in general, humans work by pattern-matching, which isn't as vulnerable to those increases. An increase in game-tree complexity directly ups the difficulty for computers. I don't think Arimaa is all that brilliantly designed or unique in this manner. --Prosfilaes 01:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am willing to assert more thoroughgoing that Arimaa is, in fact, a badly-designed game- a game designed with the single-minded purpose of being intractable for computer players at the sacrifice of many other known, quality game-design criteria (with the notable exception of human playability).

The inventor of this game is unknown to the chess variant community except for this one entry and as such, has demonstrated no general mastery of quality gameworks.

The $10,000 prize (if the money really exists) will never have to be awarded, of course, because it is generally recognized by AI experts that orders of magnitude of increase in CPU technology are required before a computer can possibly play this game competently, much less incisively enough to beat a human expert. As such, the $10,000 reward is little more than just a "publicity stunt" for the purpose of drawing attention to and popularizing this game (which has been remarkably successful).

The first-move-of-the-game advantage (for white) is generally the greatest enemy to stability in chess variants as a class of board games. For instance, in standard FIDE chess, appr. 55%-60% of the games which do not end in draws end in victories for white. This is with a turn-order based upon each player having 1 move per turn. Now, as an existential theorem, imagine how much more unstable a game must be in which each player has 4 moves per turn. Perhaps, catastrophically. This is true regardless of the fact that a game winning opening book for white has not yet been discovered due to the intractable nature of the game to present-day computers. If such a thing CAN exist in theory, then the game is fatally flawed.

--BadSanta

There's also of course FischerRandom Chess. 128.6.175.48 15:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear sirs, there is another chess variant I have read about which, unfortunately, I cannot google. It is called, I think, Basic Chess.

In this chess variant, the initial position of the board is similar to classical chess except that there are no pieces, only pawns. White and black then take turns placing any piece of their choice onto any square behind their respective line of pawns. No player is allowed to make any pawn or piece move until all his pieces have been placed on the board. Once all the pieces have been placed, the game begins. The rules of classical chess then apply including rules of castling, ie, the king moves one or two squares towards a rook and the rook is placed on the opposite side of the king.

This variant has at least two distinct advantages over other chess variants: (a) The game does not start the same way and one can already apply strategy while still arranging the pieces, (b) the sames rules of classical apply. sadiztik210.14.27.179 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 18:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

There are thousands of books on chess, it is impossible to list them all. Still I added a few books, which contain enough information to verify content of this article (and many other chess-related articles). Andreas Kaufmann 18:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

What do we mean by CHESS?

Chess in this article seems to be defined uniquely in the header as the modern, european chess (64 squares, 8 pawns, 2 rooks etc...). Wouldn't it be more appropriate to define first chess in a general way since many variants of chess have different rules and configurations? I would define chess as a strategic bord game where two armies are confronted and the goal is to take the King of the enemy. Then, it can be explained that the word chess taken alone is mostly used to denote the european, modern game, and if one wants to denote a variant, one says chenese chess, nordic chess, thai chess etc. --Philipum 11:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, now I understood when I clicked the link Chess (disambiguation). But why not explain that directly in the article itself instead of forcing people to find this link? --Philipum 12:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think it would be nice to have a weekly(or longer) chess collaboration to expand bio's, openings, books and other chess related things. Thoughts?Falphin 19:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rukh

From what I understand, rukh is actually Persian for "chariot". It only happens to sound like the Arabic for roc.[5] — Gwalla | Talk 00:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Age range?

Where 2 that age range come from ? Didn't Capablanca learn the game when he was four ?

Also the playing time > 1 hour ? There are very fast games, and also games that last months.

I Think thoses two parameters really make no sense in chess.

Capablanca is something of an exception. Age ranges can't be precise; they're best estimates. Again, the playing time is the norm. You can play any game by email and take forever, but most games of chess will run up to that time. --Prosfilaes 21:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the age range should be changed. To 3 and up probably. Of course most people learn chess when they are older than 6 but 6 and up suggests that chess is not suitable for younger children. Yet almost all professional and many amateur players have learnt the game before they were 6. As for the length of games, the most popular time control now is 90 minutes for each side plus 30 seconds added after every move. This means that a 60 move game can last for 4 hours. As players generally use up all their time this is a good estimate. Also note that other popular time controls generally produce longer games. I'd say that an average tournament game (which in chess jargon refers to long-play tournaments so blitz tournament games are excluded) is about 4 hours long.

I don't it reasonable to set the age for Chess to the lowest age anyone has ever learned chess. The age range should be at what age is the normal person intellectually and emotionally mature enough to play the game, and I would be surprised to find your average pre-6 year old to sit still through an hour long board game. It should match roughly what is advertised on commerical game boxes for age, a pragmatic range of the ages normally attracted to the game, and not include the child prodigies and outliers.--Prosfilaes 7 July 2005 09:18 (UTC)

I was looking at some commerical board games today, and found that the simplest had an age range of 6 and up, and a basic game similar to Hasbro's Game of Life had an age range of 8 and up. I think someone (possibly me) should chase down an authoritive source on games, and use the ages from there, or delete it all together. I suspect the age range should go up. I'm not going to do anything with it right now, though. --Prosfilaes 02:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The boxed chess set I have says "ages 8 and up," and even this seems rather low. The average 6-year-old simply does not have the patience to learn to play a game as complicated and abstract as chess. I regularly play chess with my cousins, who are 9 and 10, and the 9-year-old has problems with the game (she only insists on playing because I play with her older brother). The three of us also play Life, and it's clear that this game is much better suited to them. A 6-year-old might be able to move the pieces in chess, but there's more to playing a game than moving the pieces around.

Harkenbane 06:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I dislike this. Are there any references that prove that a normal 6-years old would have difficulties playing chess? That might just be common sense, but then, what about 7 years old? Can they? Or 8? This seems very POV to me, but I cannot remove it without taking the whole game-tag down.

Introgressive 01:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Names Of The Pieces In Every Language

What started out as a couple of brief references to names of pieces in other languages and their rough translations back to English is growing into a monster. How many languages are there worldwide, anyway? In this modern age, chess is known and played (at least, secondarily) everywhere. To make this section complete, we would need to consult with people who are fluent in every language in the world to include this huge volume of trivial information (which would dwarf the rest of the article). But why? To the contrary, I think we should delete what we already have. It is trivial pursuit at best. --BadSanta

Note that these alternative names are given in English, not their native equivalent. The purpose is to show the difference in chess traditions. Languages from regions without a long chess tradition would be pointless to include, unless some special name were thought up for them to use because of some interesting social situation. In most languages, the pieces will have the same name (translated or loaned) as the culture that introduced chess to them. PRB 11:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This has no place in the chess article, but the content could be moved to its own article. Also the information would be better presented in table form.--65.92.19.246 16:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Foregone Conclusion?

The following in the intro is technically inaccurate: "Note that checkmate renders the capture of the king unnecessary since it is a foregone conclusion and the game ends at that time." The king may legally be checkmated by a piece which is "pinned" against its own king and thus cannot legally move (to make the capture of the opposing king); such a condition is nonetheless a legal checkmate. (It is illegal for a player to move such that his/her king is attacked; there is no such self-initiated "checkmate" option in chess; any such move is simply illegal (and this is the source of most stalemate results).) Suggest the entire sentence be deleted.

I'm not sure how this is possible. If a piece is pinned, then it could be captured. It would seem a piece cannot be giving mate if it can be captured by any piece other than the king. Is there some kind of unusual case I'm missing here? Can you give an example? - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, a pinned piece cannot be captured if the piece attacking _it_ is also pinned. Example: Black Qd8 Bf8 Pd7 Ke7 Pf7 Rc5, White: Qe5 Kf5 Bb4, black to move. Black is checkmated by the white queen even though the white queen cannot capture the black king, because the black rook cannot capture the white queen because it is pinned by the white bishop. --207.69.139.12 00:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

So what do you propose as a technically-accurate-in-every-case replacement sentence which does not run-on to paragraphical length? A tiresome explanation of the details of endgame scenarios is not appropriate for an introductory section. --AceVentura

My suggestion is already above: delete the entire erroneous sentence, which is extraneous anyway. I would also suggest changing the prior (penultimate) sentence to read as: "This occurs when a king is attacked and the player has no legal move which takes the king out of attack." Being under attack and being capturable are _not_ equivalent in chess, for the reason already given (pinning), and checkmate is _only_ related to the former. Similar changes are needed on the "checkmate" page as well (no mention of capturing is appropriate). (No details of engame scenarios, nor of the difference between attack and capture, are necessary to make the page accurate.) --4.236.18.213 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what makes it erroneous. Let's say a white, pinned queen is giving checkmate. So what? The white queen may be pinned, but it will still capture the black king before black would capture the white king on the next move. It is therefore still a "foregone conclusion" that black's king will be captured. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that's simply wrong. There's no "forgone conclusion" in chess. The game ends instantly at checkmate, and it has nothing to do with capturing the king on the next move. The person who pointed out being under attack and being subject to capture not being the same thing in chess is correct for exactly the reason given: pieces pinned against the king can't move. Quale 02:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not wrong, it's exactly the reason why the game ends at checkmate. The reason the game ends in checkmate is because the opposing king would be captured. The reason you cannot put yourself in check is your own king would be captured. If we remove these rules -- that checkmate ends the game automatically and you cannot put yourself in check -- and state that the game ends when the enemy king is captured, then any situation that is checkmate in standard chess would still be a victory for that side, just one move later. The rule that "you cannot put yourself in check" would not even need to be applied here because, again, the opposing king is captured first, which ends the game. I conjecture that this is the way chess was actually played originally, and checkmate was invented to avoid the embarrassment of having your king actually being captured. Again, it's only conjecture that it was actually played like this, but whether or not it was, it is the reason that checkmate exists: because the capture of the enemy king is a foregone conclusion. Or, here's another way of putting it: the "you cannot put yourself in check" rule is designed assuming that it is impossible to put yourself in check and capture the enemy king in the same move, which in standard chess is true. If the game did not end at checkmate, but did end with the capture of the king, this assumption would no longer be true and so the rule makes less sense. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that despite the best efforts of a few of us, we ended-up with a rambling paragraph about the complexities of chess endgames (as well as incomplete due to necessary editting) instead of the concise, clear, original sentence which I am still not convinced was at all inaccurate. --AceVentura

furrykef said: the "you cannot put yourself in check" rule is designed assuming that it is impossible to put yourself in check and capture the enemy king in the same move, which in standard chess is true Chessplayers know the situation where you use a piece to block a check, and deliver check with that same piece, from the square you put it on. If the rule "you may not put yourself in check" were not invented, you could on the next move take that same piece from its square and capture the king, putting yourself in check at the same time. So this rule is not designed assuming that that situation is impossible. Something else may have played a role: if white needs a certain number of moves to capture black's king, and black captures white's king in the same number of moves, who has won? The rule "you may not put yourself in check" solves this problem. The fun is, that applying this rule poses you with a new problem: you can no longer take the king! When you are in check, any move that does not take the king out of check, is a move that puts yourself in check. So the rule "you may not put yourself in check" forces you to take the king out of check immediately. If you cannot do that, you cannot make a legal move anymore. Voila, checkmate is born.

Capturing the King is illegal; in a blitz game, a player capturing the opponent's King, looses the game! (See FIDE handbook.)

Changes for the reading

In preparing to read the main article, I made a few minor changes. There was one point where the grammar was a little awkward and I changed it. Also, I clarified some points in the opening of the article:

• for the benefit of those that know nothing about the subject, I pointed out that white is the player that always goes first
• in the article text where it used unicode to display pieces, I also picked up the pieces from the standard chess image set for drawing chessboards on Wikipedia and inserted those inline into the article, because for some users (such as myself) the unicode shows up as ? while the images should show if their browser supports PNG images
• I changed the text to state that checkmate is the state where the user is in check and cannot make any move that removes them from that state. This, I think makes the concept of what checkmate is - as opposed to mere check - much clearer. Rather than explaining the ways to get out of check (block the checking piece, if one; capture the checking piece, if one; move the king, if the other two options are either undesirable, unavailable, or if the king is in check from more than one piece then the king has to be moved). This may be something we want to add to the main article or to a secondary article on how to play.

I hope you get a chance to hear my reading of the article and let me know what you think. Paul Robinson 21:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian

I was looking at the guardian chess section (http://sport.guardian.co.uk/chess) and i see they have a like here (broken currently). Just a note, great job everyone :D

Fix up

Hmm...this is a quite a nice article but IMHO it needs some work. Perhaps it has degraded somewhat since gaining FA status. Here's what I think should be done. I hope to make some/all of these changes in the coming weeks.

• Remove most of those long lists of links at the bottom of the article. should we be linking to Chess-related deaths or Chess symbols in Unicode from this broad article]?
• Write a brief section titled "Gameplay" with a main article link to Rules of Chess
• Write a strategy section with a main article link to Chess strategy and tactics
• Link to the chess category instead of some of the long internal link lists
• Write small sections for some of the following; Chess variants, Chess in the arts and literature (public perception), chess problems, Top players etc.

Basically I think this article is short. We should summarize most important points. This article only mentions openings in the see also section. Paralleling sections in Go (board game) would be a good place to start. This link is Broken 04:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I did some reorganizations of the article. I think we need to add some more text to "World champions" section. Any volunteers? Andreas Kaufmann 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tablebase

I created a stub for a new article at tablebase. I've been too lazy to go back and fill in the tablebase generation algorithm. -- Myria 06:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Computer Chess II

The idea that computers "play chess" the same way humans do is at best highly uninformed.

That sentence would be correct without the quote marks; computers and humans play chess very differently. But with the quote marks, it sounds like you're saying something like "humans play chess, and computers don't play chess, at least not in the usual sense of the words."

Not only do strong computer chess programs employ huge databases of openings and endgames, which no human could approach,

right.

they apply highly customized evaluation functions on each move searched,

humans do that too.

and can attain enormous search depths given enough hardware power.

Not "enormous". The second Deep Blue could search 12 ply ahead. The computation time required goes up exponentially with search depth, so building a computer a thousand or a million times faster doesn't actually help that much.

Suggesting this is how humans play chess is tantamount to saying that the human brain is a giant calculator, which has been shown to be untrue.

Depends what you mean "calculator". It's giant, and it calculates, but it is not crisp and discrete. Where a computer will have an explicit move-for-move record of a game, a human might or might not remember every move, but in either case information about that game will be spread all through the brain and fused intimately with other things.

Not only do computers "play" in a fundamentally different manner, but it is important to include a note about this to help de-rail the popular myth that a chess computer defeating a human GM means anything except that chess can be solved by brute force. 216.39.182.234 08:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Chess can't be solved by brute force. Not now, probably not ever. The game tree is too big. Computers have to play the midgame by tracing various possibilities forward a bit and then using heuristics to see how the situation looks at that point. They have worse heuristics and better search depth than human players. Both computers and humans play the opening using a list of established opening sequences that have been used many times before, combined with some idea of how well white and black ended up doing after that. Computers have more complete and objective listings--they're more likely to know what has historically been the most effective way to make someone regret 1. Na3. In the endgame, computers look the position up in a tablebase; humans aim for an airtight analysis of the situation, with varying success. Insofar as computers do better, they do it by superior force, but they have to apply their force to the same sub-problems that humans apply their force to; it's not as though computers were so powerful they could just generate a 32-piece tablebase and use that.

When a computer beats a human GM it does not mean anything except that computers can now beat human GMs at chess. I don't know who ever thought it meant anything more than that. DanielCristofani 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chess is not a sport

Wikipedia says a "sport consists of a physical activity or skill carried out with a recreational purpose". I assume physical is applicable to both activity or skill.

Similarly, a Google definition search yields many definitions for sport, all of which, would exclude chess.

- syndicate ^t 22:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

the olympics www.ishipress.com/olympic.htm say it is a sport. Broken S 03:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputed then. Either way there is an inconsistency between the defintions of sport and chess. One must be wrong. - syndicate ^t 16:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made between sports and games along traditional conventions of language. Chess is typically called a board game, not a board sport. --AceVentura

I think that Chess should be classified as a game or a past-time, really. There are championships and competitions, but it's hardly a sport. You hardly run about or zoom down the Chess board. ;) --Cyvros 00:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Does this need editing?

What does this sentence mean at the end of the Game Play variations section? It doesn't make any sense to me, but that might not be an indication that it needs to be changed:

When playing at faster time controls computers become relatively more powerful to humans.

It says that, when there is less time to think, computers will do better against you.Tommstein 03:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• So, would this be an better way to say that sentence, or does that sentence need no editing?

With less time to consider each move, humans do not do as well against computers.

Lsommerer 04:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"do as well" is more vague than "relatively stronger" in my view. As well as what? The computers? Than at slower time controls? I see no problems with the original, but maybe for people who don't already know it is confusing. Broken S 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't already know that, but the sentence seems simple to me.Tommstein 04:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Variants

Covered are all the 2-player games. There is (was) an Indian 4-player variant... Also, I've read it may have originated as a divination tool, based on a battle between yin & yang. And, tho I don't see where it'd go, what about mention of famous players/Grandmasters who didn't play computers? There's been professional play for a century, & players make a living at it. (I've even read an SF story, title I don't recall, of a past Grandmaster/pro refusing to "see the future" for fear of compromising their livings...). Comment? Trekphiler 19:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see chess variants, 4-player indian variant is called Chaturaji. Andreas Kaufmann 04:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has ever cottoned on to my variant "Schizo-Chess" where you play as normal until you capture- if you capture you switch to the opposing side and play a further move, if that is a capture you switch back, until there are no more captures. Aim is to win on your move, usually with a combination where you play the winning move as checkmate. "Schizo" because each player has to play himself simultaneously, also- it does your head in...

Value of the pieces

In the second paragraph under the heading "Strategy And Tactics", reference to the value of the various pieces is made. However this description of their values is, in my opinion, a little unclear as it does not point out that these values are theoretical only and have absolutely no relation to actual gameplay (certainly they are not used for any tie-break situation or other legal mechanic) other than in theory and as an aid to tactics. The way it is expressed right now it does point out that these values vary depending on the source but it doesn't say WHY this is so. I can't help feeling that to a complete and total novice it would be like reading a text on soccer that says something like "sometimes a goal is worth 2 points and sometimes just one depending on the book". It would make absolutely no sense. -Stenun, 18/12/05

It is supposed to be a breift overview. We go into more detail at chess piece point values the article that we link to in that section. Broken S 16:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone want to add this to the article?: Also, Knights are considered more valuable in the early game as they can move around in a closed position, while Bishops can easily be blocked. During the endgame, it is the other way around, with Bishops more valuable because they have greater range and movability and Knights are less because of their relative "slowness" or short-range. 70.111.224.85 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam in external links

External links here seems to be periodically flooded with spam advertisements. For example, I already removed several times a link to chesshere.com (not notable chess server, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesshere.com, but now I see it again there (see "Play chess online" entry in "General" section). Any ideas how to deal with this? Andreas Kaufmann 21:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete them every time they show up, and hope others do the same? Having left a note about it may help to make people more aware of the problem. DanielCristofani 22:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I am the one who added this link again, I also was surprised that it was being deleted always, I don't think your reasoning "not notable chess server" is enough to not include this link, I think the server is one of the best available online chess servers on the internet, it is true that they don't have that huge number of players like other sites but this is not a good reason to reject a site, I think QUALITY should decide if a link is to be added or not, not how famous it is!

Sure, we can add a link to a new high quality server, even if it is not yet very popular. However, a couple of monthes ago an anonymous editor (owner of the site?) added links to chesshere.com not only to this article, but also to articles of each world champion. The lniks were added at the top of the external links and in bold face, so it looked like a typical spam-advetirsements. Such abuse of Wikipedia and self-advetirsemnt is not allowed. Andreas Kaufmann 18:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that none of them are unique resources. The wikipedia rules don't really permit linking to commercial sites, and all of them are commercial in some sense or other (as in, they've all got to pay the bills somehow.) I think linking to sites that compare servers is probably Ok, there's no way that the wikipedia could review sites. One thing for sure, it's not a question of quality, nor how famous a site is, it's a question of how the external link interacts with the Wikipedia rules.WolfKeeper 20:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the sites that compare servers is that they both seem to be linking to individuals who are known to have had problems with various servers that they've been admins of or whatnot.

I propose that the link to Chess.FM is removed from the page considering that you need to be a paying member of ICC to use their content.

There is a general problem here with regard to what external links to include in this article. While Wikipedia is not supposed to be a list of links, it is extremely useful to readers to have pointers to some external resources. And there are many chess sites that provide very valuable resources. For example, there are several sites that provide searchable databases of games. Some (if not all) of these external sites are "commercial" in the sense of being run by for-profit organizations even though the database pages are free for use. Nothing in Wikipedia's charter or guidelines says that links to commercial sites is discouraged. I am prompted to write this note by the recent edit by 67.180.16.78 that removed several of the most useful database sites from the external links section. I will revert this change - but it brings up the issue that we need a policy for determining what external sites should be included. This policy should be stated clearly somewhere on this "Talk" page. - Hayne 00:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal link problem

The link to the game with the first double rook sacrifice goes to [[Thomas Bowdler#Chess]]. There is, however, no such section in the Thomas Bowdler article. In fact, the entire notation of the game has been removed from that article and replaced with an obscure external link. I would appreciate to see this game shown on Wikipedia, preferably in its own article. Sir48 00:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro text

The text in the introduction overlaps with the image on the right. Somebody who knows how, fix it please. 70.111.251.203 03:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First move advantage

Someone want to add a bit about white having first move advantage of about 10% over black? Info gathered from chessgames.com database. It works down to (with the first 4 most popular openings): ~36.6% White win, ~36.6% Draw, and 26.6% Black win. 128.6.175.48 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a better source on that. I don't have the book around me or at a local library but a book on the life of Alexander Steintz (?) has him calculating the exact value of the first move in terms of material (he says 1/2, or one half of a pawn), and from what I know it's regarded more or less as canon. I'll see if I can find it.

Mistake? Date of first chess pieces incorrect?

"earliest written mention of game 500 BC"

"first written reference to a player 230AD"

"derivative of chinese game, which existed 100-200BC"

"earliest excavated pieces 3000BC"

The 3000BC date seems way out compared to the rest. Should this be 300BC perhaps?

--- "The oldest known chess pieces have been found in excavations of Moen jo Daro in Sindh dated to 3000 BC, during which time the Persians inhabited the area."

I agree, it sounds fishy. Either way, Sindh was not inhabited by Persians, not c. 300BC, definitely not c. 3000BC. --SohanDsouza 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

--- I think it should be changed to 300BC (the "3000" quote would have contained at least a coma if the original author was careful). Maybe flag it as needing a reference.

This was either a joke or information from some unreliable sources. I removed this now. Without reference to reliable source it can't stay in the article. Andreas Kaufmann 11:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Game complexity

How about a section in the article on the game complexity of chess besides a mere mention of the shannon number? 128.6.175.59 21:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What information do you intend in putting in such a section. I don't have any information on the game complexity of Chess besides the Shannon's number. Fetofs ^Hello! 01:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Chess in Greek

Although the word zatrikion exists in Greek, it is very rare, and few people in Greece would know what it means. The word that is used instead is skaki, obviously based on the Italian.

Chess Boxing anyone?

Should Chessboxing be mentioned at all in this article? Where?

In the "alternative ways to play chess" section alongside such indispensible games as "Chess-a-hol" would be OK it seems. --AceVentura

Fischer

There is a very clear mistake in this webpage that says Robert James Fischer invented Random Chess. Free Placement Chess, which I believe is the proper name, had been around for a long time previously. It would be nice if anyone was able to give some idea as to who really did invent this. If they cannot I shall merely delete the Fischer claim within one month. 19th May.

• Hello there, __ It doesn't seem so; there is a whole "Fischer Random Chess" article in WP which attributes the invention to Fischer. I looked there and, there were no references. But it already seems unlikely to find a sort of an academic ref. for that! However, there is a big number of external links in there. Perhaps you need to have a look there too. If you somehow manage to make sure that the game, in such properties, did exist before Fischer, then, not only the information presented here should be adjusted, but also the entire Fischer Random Chess article. Best, __ Maysara 13:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Hi, I found the following reference in Article 123 of Tim Krabbe's Chess Diary

TimKrabbe which gives a concise and researched overview of the reality of the situation. I am actually genuinely upset that this Fischermania reference has even survived so long here in the first place. ZincAtari.

• Well, then; it seems right! You have much work to do then, if you'd introduce the truth about the matter here in WP! Your basic concern is with the "Fischer Random Chess" article itself, you will change many things in there, particularly the attribution of the invention to Fischer. And if you will do, I think mentioned should also be made in connection to the already somehow established relationship between the invention and the name of Fischer - that is, as an information that itself deserves to be mentioned in WP. But yes, I agree with you and I hope you can carry-out the task. Just make the changes and all, no waiting for a month or anything like that (it is a WIKI!), and if someone objects THEN discuss. BE BOLD! Thanks, __ Maysara 17:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any claim in this article that claims that Fischer invented random chess. He invented Fischer Random Chess, a.k.a. Chess960. The two are not synonymous. You could say Chess960 is a variation on random chess. The passage you refer to in the Chess article does not contain any inaccuracies, so you should probably not delete it. SubSeven 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct, but I feel at least the article should be weighted appropriately. The original variant is called Shuffle Chess, and this is far more popular because Fischer's variation needs a computer to set up the initial positions. The attachment of Fischer's name to his variant is at best egotistical, and to place it above Shuffle Chess seems to me to be wrong. I would prefer the article to read something like 'Shuffle Chess has been endorsed at times by the likes of Gligoric and Fischer for example.' ZincAtari

• This makes things clear now: nothing is wrong with the "Fischer Random Chess" information (also there is a whole section there about the "naming") while yes, at the same time, the OLDER, and more GENERAL "Shuffle or Random" chess, is not mentioned HERE at all. I support the suggestion of ZincAtari that the mentioning of Fischer's invention should be represented as a variety of random or shuffle chess in general, and not as something of particular superiority or uniqueness. And so, perhaps a mentioning of more of such older varieties would be plausible. Thank you, Maysara 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Vodka chess and chess-a-hol!

Did any one here ever played these before?! They sound reasonable to me so as to be included in the chess variants section. But the paragraph gets deleted by apparently professional chess players whenever they come across it! (they say it is unsourced or referenced nonsense and then delete it!!) However, I found those links in a quick googling: VodkaChess, and chess-a-hol. so PLEASE do not delete the paragraph without talking first, here, I guess. Thank you, __ Maysara 19:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

they aren't popular enough to be included. More famous variants have been removed for being too trivial. BrokenSegue 19:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hi -- but what makes popularity the particular criterion by which the representation of information is selectable? __ Maysara 14:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not even a variant. There is no gameplay impact whatsoever. It's just something fun to do while playing chess. To qualify as a variant, there has to be some kind of different in rules, pieces, or setup, etc. SubSeven 20:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hello there, SubSeven -- Well, I certainly disagree; the whole idea about this is precisely to produce a "gameplay impact", namely, and quite interestingly, drunkenness! Please notice that no one said that they were variants of chess, they are only an "alternative ways to play chess". I must ask you to be aware that if you personally have no interest in such ways or consider them lowly, this still does not mean that they should not be mentioned here as actual things that some people still like to do - especially that the properties of those specific ways, are quite particularly interesting, as the game itself, in its most original and traditional form, requires consentration and the soberness of the mind-state and intellectual activity. You say "just something fun to do", but please let me remind you that, a lot more people generally play chess precisely because they consider it to be "just something fun to do", thus, no contradiction or inconsistency in adding to the already fun, just some more fun! Furthermore, I cant see how you are unable to distinguish the difference in all rules, pieces, and certainly the setup; when you add to the rules more rules, this certainly and sufficiently applies a difference in the game (in fact, most variants I know either "add or remove" a set or rules, as simple as that). That now a piece resembles not only its properties and characteristics of motion and value, but also a definite amount of Vodka or Alcohol, is indeed a big difference - a funny difference, yes, it may be, but that's totally beside the point. Now the "setup" is already entirely different as well, especially if we put on top of all that, the gradually increasing drunkenness of the players, one match after the other, and the nature of their play and game, whose aim is still, somehow, to checkmate! Yet, after all that, again let me remind you that no one claimed that Vodka chess and Chess-a-hol were "qualified" as variants of chess - they have been mentioned in the "alternative ways to play chess" section, until they have been deleted recently by someone who resentfully accused them and thus their players, along with the editor who contributed with the information about them here, with the, quite nonsensical expression, "nonsense". But to qualify as an "editor" for a supposedly encyclopedia, is more difficult than to qualify as a chess variant and as he who defines chess variants! The earlier has to control himself - the later, his opponent! Thank you, __ Maysara 14:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The references suggested above (VodkaChess and chess-a-hol) are lousy. Neither of those sites has anything at all to do with chess, which is the topic of this article. They make a stronger case to mention vodka chess in the vodka article, so go take it there if it's that important to you. Even if better refs were provided my opinion is that "vodka chess" is too trivial and unimportant to be mentioned in this article. Nearly every human activity in the Western world has been turned into a drinking game, but prominently noting that in hundreds of articles is not encyclopedic in my view. In fact this is already more than adequately covered at Drinking game#Conversion of other games and doesn't warrant any mention here. 68.190.92.147 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

chess and ELO rating with Computer Programme

Many Computer chess programme and playing the game give rating. Now it is time for FIDE to create a programme easily available to all for ELO rating. Reader of this discussion are requested to do the needful for the same vkvora 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5 Nomination

Failed on quality: too many external links, no inline refs and with that very few references, and too many lists in-article. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 02:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Im trimming the external links. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup}

History of Chess - Should I add this story?

I remember reading in several books about this story about the history of chess. The story goes something like this:

A king asked one of his subjects to invent a game for him. The subject agreed, but only on one condition. The subject provided the king with a 64-square chessboard, and asked the King to put 1 grain on the first square, 2 grains on the 2nd square, 4 grains on the 3rd, 8 on the 4th, and so on. The King agreed, but it turned out that he would have to pay billions of grains!

I can't remember the exact details, so I will find a book and get the exact details, then add the story and cite the book.

Do you think the story should be included? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I remember it, some mathmetician did a job for the king, the king asked him what reward he wanted, and that was it. Should it be included, with the exact details? I tend to think no. Bubba73 (talk), 01:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Not actually chess, is it? Doovinator 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote against including the story. It is almost certainly not historical. It's a mathematics lesson, not a fact about the creation of chess. --Fritzlein 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Age range 6 and up"

Oh no, I have beggin to play at chess at 3 years! Lorenzo Alali from fr Wikipedia

Capablanca and Karpov apparently started playing at the age of 4. They became world champions. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we just write "varies" and stop arguing about it? Or how about we remove it from the template? BrokenSegue 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Disagree to remove it from the template since this template is rather a standard across all others.
Points worth thinking/noting:

1. the "age" is just a general reference. It's not to be taken seriously.
2. one should not mention an exception and say it's wrong. Again it supposes to be true for most poeple.
   1. If it is the case, how about if I find a 90-year-old man who is unable to learn chess. Should we nail down to 5-90?
   2. When you tell someone how old do I need before I can go to university. You are going to say an adult of about 20 or so age. However there's case where a genius children aged 7-9 can be admitted into an university.
3. In conclusion, just leave it as it is. As to the age reference, just follows what most manufacturers of board games do, and supposes the answer is true for most people. After all, it's just a reference, a rough one indeed.

Thanks for reading. --Wai Wai (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Deep Blue Vs. Garry Kasparov, computer chess section

It was my understanding that in the 1996 6 game match of Deep Blue Vs. Garry Kasparov, Deep Blue won with a score of 3.5-2.5. In the article it states Garry Kasparov won the match, can this be confirmed?

There were two different matches.

Playing Time

Only 7 hours? What about correspondence chess? 165.230.132.122 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Or how would you state 1 hour? Is there any reference/index/logic? A blitz game lasting one hour lol :-)

Mate definition and meaning in Persian

Friends,

mate means dumbstruck in the Persian language. It does not mean finished and it shouldn't be mixed up with maata مات in Arabic which means die. In Persian we say some one is mate when he has got no choice and is extremely surprised. And I agree with the guy that said the rook comes from "Rokh" Word in Persian. We call it Rokh and it is not possible that Iranians change such worlds like rook to rokh because we can pronounce it quite well but it is possible that European changed the word because for Europeans it is not fine to pronounce /kh/.

Game theoritic aspects

I think this article needs a section devoted to game teoretic aspects of the game (game complexity, solvability, existence and computability of a winning strategy, etc...).--Pokipsy76 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Chess should be merged with Queen (chess), King (chess), Rook (chess), Bishop (chess), Pawn (chess), and Knight (chess). GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many chess articles to merge... GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 17:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge. Bubba73 (talk), 18:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Age range = any" needs change

We should specify the age range (instead of saying any). Like Go (board game) and backgammon, they have already specified it is about 5+. Does anyone know what number we should fill?--Wai Wai (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Chess references in Literature/Art

The article doesn't mention how X-Men is related to Chess. It is necessary to list how chess is related to listed entries, otherwire listing them is futile, IMHO.--Anupamsr 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This section needs a major rework. Instead of a long list as now, a decriptive text is needed, something like "Go in popular culture" section in Go article. It is also not needed to list all films with chess theme, there is already category Films about chess for this purpose. Andreas Kaufmann 18:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Piece Names

This article mentions that the bishop, knight, and rook were the elephant, camel, and horse in India. The article is not too clear which one is which, I assumed the elephant was the rook but after reading more I was not too sure. Can someone please clarify this in the article?

Spelling

Given that Chess is a proper noun, shouldn't it be capitalised? At what point does a game become popular enough to not be capitalised? Should I call Monopoly "monopoly" now? Rickyp 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Chess is not a proper noun as I understand it, and thus should only be capitalised if it appears at the start of a sentence. --Guinnog 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Position (chess)

Today I extended the Position disambiguation, mainly by writing the Position (team sports) stub. Because I recall "position" at chess vaguely, I added "position (chess)" as one disambiguent, without having much to say or finding anywhere to point. Feel free to help, perhaps by deleting it from the list. --P64 01:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tidied to avoid the red-link (and piping). TerriersFan 02:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ratings

i might be able to. i can research more one it;)

Ratings

srry about the double post but i had to do it. the problem was the topic i didnt captalize r and now i spammed. anyways, i can help. i know some about that. maybe i should do it with some help? might be my first article that goes undeleted!lol.

Computer Chess

no. the computer will NEVER match a human if the human has infinite memory and time. the only adavantage that causes deep blue to pwn kasparov is speed. other than that computer ill lose.

If a computer and a human both had infinite memory and time, both could play perfectly, and either white would always win, or they would always tie. (This is assuming that both can figure out ways to use some of their infinite memory and time to do rock-solid error correction. The computer might actually have an edge here, since they are much better at doing anything systematically.) DanielCristofani 07:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

its just how it is. us humans 'feel' the move that is right, saving our time.a computer calculates fster, yes, but for weaker engines, they arnt fast enough to calculate beyond our human thought. dont say computer pwn human all the way. human has creaivity in attacks, etc. and thats y not all jobs r taken by comps.

Computer Chess II

computer think much differantly than us. they do NOT think hm.....this position is good. no. computer finds all possable move, after that, and after. then each posison is given a value, based on material plus position.

"given a value"--that value is basically an estimate of how "good" the position is. Compared with the estimate a human would make, it is mechanical and un-subtle; also, if the position looks "good", the computer cannot actually be happy about it. However, the computer's score can take into account things like control of the center, passed pawns, having both bishops, etc., which are some of the same things a human would look at if assessing the position consciously. DanielCristofani 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

computer cannot beat human in 1 point: they cannot connect patterns. the human thought can easily spot out patterns, while computers simply can't. even with this, computers simply overpower humans. if humans and computer thought the same amount of moves per second then computers=pwned.

Yeah, if a human had all the powers of a computer and a human, then s/he could beat a computer. Also, if a computer had all the powers of a computer and a human then it could beat a human. And? DanielCristofani 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

oh btw computers cant hin like 45 million moves per sec, while humans think around 2 moves per sec (garry kasparov)

These numbers are probably not directly comparable. Kasparov is probably thinking about two initial moves per second, plus many separate branching lines of play that could follow from each of them. It is hard to compare how many moves each is considering, because while a computer considers all these moves separately and explicitly, the human thought process is much less tidy and measurable. DanielCristofani 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

and yet garry karsparov won deep blue before and drew a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamierules (talk • contribs) 6 October 2006

Yeah. The computer and the human grandmaster, with very different strengths and weaknesses, nonetheless have a very comparable level of skill at the present. DanielCristofani 08:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe any of this. It sounds like it is all made up to me, and there is no evidence to anything that is stated. This whole article is opinion and not fact, and i would like the facts so i can start playing chess with my friends. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.120.99 (talk • contribs) 17 October 2006

--

One small comment: It may be true that a human can eventually universally outassess a computer through pattern recognition, but there exist counterexamples today in chess where that is not the case. Specifically, in certain endgames with 5 or 6 pieces, a tablebase shows the sequence of winning moves for the superior side, many of which are unique, but the moves appear completely contradictory to most other principles and would not have a chance of being chosen by a grandmaster (this was covered in Chess Life maybe 4 or 5 months ago). Now perhaps these examples are either extraordinarily rare so that there are few enough that their solution could reasonably be committed to memory, or have some unifying theme which upon further study could be understood. But the point is human's understanding of chess is not universally superior to a computer's. For the most part, perhaps yes. But not completely ... at least yet. Baccyak4H 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

shah

The article asserts chess to be derived from chaturanga, but even the etymology site cited says that spanish and persian words derived from chaturanga, but not chess. Chess is certainly derived from shah, from shah mat cf: af:Skaak az:Şahmat bs:Šah bg:Шахмат ca:Escacs cs:Šachy da:Skak de:Schach el:Σκάκι eo:Ŝako eu:Xake fr:Jeu d'échecs hr:Šah io:Shak-ludo ia:Chacos is:Skák it:Scacchi la:Scacci lv:Šahs lb:Schach lt:Šachmatai jbo:caxmati hu:Sakk mk:Шах nl:Schaken no:Sjakk nn:Sjakk pl:Szachy ro:Şah (joc) ru:Шахматы sq:Shahu scn:Scacchi sk:Šach (hra) sl:Šah sr:Шах sh:Šah fi:Shakki sv:Schack tt:Shаhmat vi:Cờ vua tr:Satranç uk:Шахи

We should trust chess scholars/historians not a random etymology site. --Ioshus^(talk) 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

FIDE Chess?

The article says "The game described in this article is sometimes known as FIDE Chess, Western Chess or International Chess to distinguish it from other variants."

Really? In my experience, Western Chess has limited usage, but I've never seen "International Chess" and I think "FIDE Chess" is a particularly unlikely term. Do we have a reference that shows these are actually used, or is this original research? 165.189.91.148 18:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)