I want to formally nominate rules of chess for GA, but first I'll ask for reviews here. I've made comments on the Talk page. Bubba73 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2008
Support for GA-class
As mentioned earlier, I think the article is ready for a GA-review. Actually I have already nominated the article at WP:GAC, so it is only a matter of time. SyG (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment
As asked for by the nominator, I will review this article with the objective of GA-class in mind, so please forgive me if the review is not as thorough as you may want. Here are my first comments, based on this version of the article.
Only Harvard style is used for citation is used now, even if another style is used for footnotes. I have limited experience on the subject but I believe it is fine. SyG (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it uses the best method - Author/date (Harvard) for references, footnotes for addition information or explanation. The USCF differences and some minor points are in the footnotes. Bubba73(talk), 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a section on famous occasions when the rules were breached, like when Kasparov castled against Polgar although he had already moved his King ? That could liven a bit the article without going out of the subject ?
I am taking that as a polite "No", and I understand there is no point in repeating the same anecdotes in various articles, so I will strike that out for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually the Kaspy-Polgar one isn't over there, but another one is. I don't have a source for Kaspy-Polgar. That could be in there. Bubba73(talk), 16:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was mistaken! The Kasparov-Polgar incident was about Kasparov having touched a piece and then deciding to move another one. Here are some online sources:
I... don't know ! A subsection is probably too much, as this anecdote is already described in the articles about Kasparov and Polgar. Maybe a brief mention in the section that has the rule, or a footnote. Or even not adding it at all, I am completely neutral on this. SyG (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I would try to avoid putting references in the Lead, they are less obstrusive in the main body of the article.
There are no more references in the Lead. SyG (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"these standard chess rules are widely accepted by the international organization FIDE".
Which "standard chess rules" ? The ones explained in the article of Wikipedia ? It does not go well with the sentence just before, in which we say that different places have different rules.
the reader may not understand the word "widely" in the sentence. If they are accepted by FIDE this is only 1 organisation, so "widely" does not mean much. Or does that mean "most of the rules are accepted by FIDE, but not all" ?
The sentence has been restructured accordingly. SyG (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"slightly modified by national organizations such as the US Chess Federation." Why is the USCF cited ? What does it bring to the reader ? Why not simply "slightly modified by national organizations." ?
The USCF is not in the Lead anymore. SyG (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done "There are slight variations of the rules for fast chess, correspondence chess, chess variants, etc."
What does "etc" aims for ? If that aims for "all the chess forms that do not have exactly the same rules", the sentence becomes a tautology.
It does not seem right to say there are slight variations for chess variants. In that latter case the variations can be huge. Also, the chess variants are not explained in the next sections of the article, so they should not be cited in the Lead.
When we say the rules for fast chess are slight variations, this implies fast chess is a secondary class of chess while 2h chess are the main class. Is it categorised as such in the rules ?
I made some changes, taking out "slight" and "etc".Bubba73(talk), 01:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me. SyG (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"Rules also govern (...) games that are played under time control." I may be missing the meaning here, it reads like an evidence to me.
I have slightly changed the sentence. SyG (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"The boards commonly used for chess tournaments have (...) green and buff squares" There are two references, but I do not see where they support this statement.
The statement has been nuanced. SyG (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think the second paragraph is superfluous and has few to do with the rules of chess. I would delete it.
This second paragraph has mostly disappeared. SyG (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"Play continues until a king is checkmated, a player resigns, or a draw is declared" What about losing on time ?
A sentence has been added to cover this case. SyG (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"Unlike Go, where the order of play is determined by the relative skills and handicaps of the players, the official chess rules do not include a procedure for determining who plays White." I do not think the reference to Go is that useful, as most readers will not know Go.
I took out that phras. Bubba73(talk), 01:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done diagram "Moves of a king" mixes the moves of the king and the castling. I would suggest to let only the moves of the king, while a diagram on castling can be added in the specific subsection about casting.
The suggestion has been implemented. SyG (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done diagram "Moves of a pawn" has a very long caption, which hurts layout. More problematic, it uses chess notation of moves that has not been explained: what does "last Black move was g7-g5" mean ?
The caption has been shortened and the notation clarified. SyG (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done As indicated on the Talk page, I like Bubba73's suggestion to change the presentation, with "en passant" and promotion upgraded to full subsections.
The change in presentation has been implemented. SyG (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"Alternatively, an inverted rook may be used to represent a queen, or the pawn on its side can be used and the player should indicate which piece it represents" Really ? In France there is a hot debate whether it is actually permitted or not, and some players have argued that "a rook is a rook is a rook", be it reversed or not. Could we mention the precise text of FIDE allowing that ?
The sentence has been removed. SyG (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done in the subsection "Castling", maybe we should mention that it is authorised to move both pieces in the same time, but not to start with the rook.
I cannot find that in the rules, so I have added a footnote explaining why it is forbidden. SyG (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done in the subsection "Check", the caption of the diagram is obscure to the reader ("Harkness").
The caption has been clarified. SyG (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done in the subsection "Check", we use chess notation about the squares ("e5", "f4") without having explained to the reader how that works.
The word "square" has been added, which should be enough for any reader with a brain to figure out. and what about the other readers ?? SyG (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides adding the word "square" I added a small section "Terminology" which explains ranks and files and how squares are named. I don't think that the reader should have to go to algebraic chess notation, so just the sqaure names are used. That is explained in that section, with a diagram. Bubba73(talk), 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A subsection on losing on time has been added. SyG (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done diagram has caption "Harkness", which does not bring much to the reader.
The caption has been clarified. SyG (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in the subsection "Resigning", how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, while he was in reality resigning in a draw position ? (unfortunately I do not remember the name of the opponent; maybe Guelfand or Svidler)
I don't know about that game or have a reference. Bubba73(talk), 01:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked for this game a bit but I have not been able to find it back, so I will strike that out. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"Players would be likely to agree to a draw since it is a theoretical draw" (caption of second diagram). I find this example much too complex for the reader. Most players under 2000 Elo would not agree to a draw in this position, not knowing it is a theoretical draw. Also, the notion of "theoretical draw" is not defined in the article and is too difficult to explain. Can we find something easier ?
The diagram has been removed. SyG (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done the subsection "Touch-move rule" does not explain what happens if the touched piece cannot perform a legal move.
A sentence has been added covering this case. SyG (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done at the beginning of the game, it is customary to let his opponent touch all his pieces to place them exactly in the centre of the squares, without requiring him to say "j'adoube" every time.
The rules don't say anything about this, but I did change it to talk about what happens once the game starts. Bubba73(talk), 01:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for me. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"Only the player whose turn it is to move may touch the pieces" I find the structure of the sentence a bit heavy, can we find something lighter ?
I have changed the sentence. SyG (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"Each player must make all his moves in a specified time, or be subject to forfeiting the game." Here we should explain that "specified time" may only mean a general formula, like 2h + 30s per move, and not necessarily a specified duration.
The explanation has been deepened. SyG (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is a checkmate on the board, the player delivering checkmate wins instantly, no matter what is subsequently noticed about the time." What if the player has not noticed the checkmate, accepts his defeat on time, and comes back two hours latter claiming there was a checkmate on the board ?
I don't think that situation is covered anywhere. Bubba73(talk), 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the sentence to avoid this possibility. SyG (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My change has been reverted :-( so the sentence is still unclear. SyG (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules don't say anything about noticing the checkmate before noticing that the time has run out. The way I read the rule is that if there is a checkmate on the board, that is what matters. Players don't have to announce checkmate. So if a move is made on the board making a checkmate, then it is noticed that the player's time expired, and then it is pointed out that there is a checkmate on the board, the game ends in checkmate. Bubba73(talk), 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article 5.1 says that checkmate ends the game. Somewhere else it says that if it is noticed later that the time ran out, it doesn't matter - the checkmate wins. So even after it was noticed that time ran out, if it is established that there was a checkmate, the game ends in checkmate. Bubba73(talk), 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The player doing the checkmate doesn't have to announce it or stop his clock or stop both clocks. If he makes a move that checkmates, he can sit there and let his time run out, the opponent can call attention to that, but the checkmate takes priority. Bubba73(talk), 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done If both players run out of time, it is a sudden death time control, and it can be established who ran out of time first, what happens ?
I think it is implied elsewhere that the one whose time ran out loses. Bubba73(talk), 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the sentence accordingly. SyG (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done"For example, a king and rook versus a king, bishop, and pawn cannot be won by either player virtually all of the time" Not true, these games will be won most of the time because most chess players (me included) are patzers who lose a piece every 10 moves.
This sentence has been removed. SyG (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done In the first paragraph, the article does not mention that an illegal move in competition will usually allow a time sanction from the arbiter, even if it is not blitz chess.
I think I added a little on that. Expand if needed. Bubba73(talk), 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see mention of that in the first paragraph, only in the second. But maybe I am fully inventing, so please allow me to ask the question: in standard chess (i.e. non-blitz), when there is an illegal move, does the arbiter allow some additional time to the plaintiff ? SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article 7.4 says that the arbiter can adjust the time according to the best evidence. I added a sentence or two and moved the USCF rule to a footnote. Bubba73(talk), 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great ! SyG (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
in the subsection "Irregularities", what happens if there are problems with the clock ? For example the clock was not started with the correct amount of time, or the clock stopped during the game ?
The rules say to get a working clock, but I didn't think that was really needed in the article. Add it if you think it is needed. Bubba73(talk), 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, sometimes you think you have a working clock, and then in the middle of the game it does not work anymore. Do the rules say sometimes on these cases ? SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article 6.10 says that a defective clock is to be replaced and that the arbiter shall use his best judgment as to what time to set for the new clock. I don't think this is needed in the article because we can't cover all of the rules and this is a "what if" situation and the remedy is pretty obvious. Bubba73(talk), 22:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure, it is not that obvious to me. For example can the arbiter:
continue the game with full time for both players ?
continue the game with the same amount of time for both players ?
restart the game from scratch (i.e. beginning position) ?
cancel the game and give half a point to both players ?
Done There are redundancies between this section and the beginning of the section "Initial setup". I would advise to displace most of it in "Equipment".
I removed most of the redundancies that were in Initial setup. Bubba73(talk), 01:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed down a little bit as well, and organised the paragraph between a paragraph on the chessboard and a paragraph on the chess pieces. I will try to add a third paragraph on the clock. SyG (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the section is organised between one unnamed subsection on the rules themselves, and another subsection on the codification of the rules. I am not completely convinced this is the best approach. I would suggest a full chronological structure, presenting both the changed of the rules and the codification as they go by.
The first subsection is too poor on dates, even vague ones. Each change of period should be mentioned.
These are my first remarks. All in all I find the article well balanced, which was not that easy to do given the risk of going into unneccessary details. Good job! SyG (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this the article which had to be deleted at all cost for violating WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE? :-) Anyway,
I just made one change to the article, because 3x repetition or 50-move rule can only be declared by the player on the move, and it can be claimed simply by declaring an intention to make a 3x or 50 move situation arise with the next move. I had a bit of trouble in formulating a short and sweet sentence to that effect, (apologies for that) but what stood there before (that either player could claim the draw when the situation is there) was a bit inaccurate.
I see that Schiller's "Official Rules of Chess" is frequently cited, this is of course OK, but those rules are only official in the US. Most, if not all, other countries go by the FIDE laws handbook here, laws of chess. For game basics, like the movement of the knight and the rules of stalemate and checkmate, this doesn't matter, but on issues like claiming a draw because the opponent is only trying to run you out of time, there are differences. (USCF has an "insufficient losing chances" rule, FIDE has "§10.2" about "normal means".) I think a reference to the relevant FIDE law is as important as the relevant USCF law.
Otherwise, I think this is a strong article.
Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies to/support of the points listed by SyG
Overturned rooks are not legal, if you look through the chesscafe.com articles (Arbiter's Notebook) by Geurt Gijssen you will see that issue discussed.
The issue of boards being green and buff has nothing to do with the rules, it is the fact that the squares are light and dark which matters. Incidentally, I think the line might be another piece of US-centrism, from pictures of tournaments throughout Europe, I think brown is the most common board color in Europe, and all my 88 rated games have been played on brown boards, whether they're wooden or plastic. But if we are going to discuss board color, that is for Chessboard not Rules of chess.
"No matter what the actual color of the board, the lighter-colored squares are called "white", and the darker-colored squares are called "black"". Is this true? I have often heard the squares referred to as "light" and "dark", simply to avoid confusion with the "white" and "black" of the pieces. This tutorial uses "light" and "dark" for example. I don't think this is a big deal though as from a mathematical viewpoint, chess could be played just fine on a monochromatic board. Sjakkalle(Check!) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The USCF Rulebook says black and white squares, but you are right - I've almost always heard/read light and dark squares, e.g. light-colored bishop. Bubba73(talk), 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that commentaries on play and articles on strategy as often use e.g. "white-square weakness", "white-squared-bishop", "black-square ...", etc. If a ref is needed, a book on the French or Dutch might helpful as black-square weakness is a common problem for Black. -- Philcha (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Schiller's book is based on the FIDE rules. That's why I used it most often. The main chapter of it follows the FIDE Articles. Chapter 16 is a two-page chapter on USCF rules. Bubba73(talk), 18:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. Bubba73(talk), 18:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Inverted rook" for a promoted piece - it isn't in the FIDE rules, but it is in Schiller's book. (Even the pawn on the side is in there, but that horrifies me since the pawn can roll to another square.) I'll make it a footnote. Bubba73(talk), 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Castling by moving both pieces at the same time - the rules say that moves are to be made with only one hand. Under USCF rules, though, I think there is no penalty for moving both at the same time, just a warning. (There is even no penalty for moving the rook first in USCF!!!) I suppose you could pick up the king, pick up the rook, release the rook, and then release the king, but this is not covered. So it isn't clear to me what FIDE allows here. Bubba73(talk), 23:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as using algebraic notation, I've changed references to say "the e6 square" and things like that. I hope that with the files and ranks labeled, that will be clear to readers. What do you think?
"how about mentioning this game when Kramnick thought his opponent was offering a draw, - I didn't know about that or know a reference.
It really helps to have other people reading this fresh. Bubba73(talk), 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Position to illustrate draw by agreement - I didn't add this position, but I thought it was about as simple as it could be. Most draws by agreement have a more complex position. So far I haven't found a reference to a good position. If a better position isn't found, I suggest that it be removed. Bubba73(talk), 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"What if the player has not noticed the checkmate, accepts his defeat on time, and comes back two hours latter claiming there was a checkmate on the board ?"
"If both players run out of time, it is a sudden death time control, and it can be established who ran out of time first, what happens ?"
The rules don't seem to say. Second one is covered earlier in the section - you lose if your time expires (except for the impossible to checkmate clause). Bubba73(talk), 01:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"In the first paragraph, the article does not mention that an illegal move in competition will usually allow a time sanction from the arbiter, even if it is not blitz chess."
"in the subsection "Irregularities", what happens if there are problems with the clock? For example the clock was not started with the correct amount of time, or the clock stopped during the game ?"
First one - I think this would be getting into too many details. Also the rule says that the arbiter will try to restore the clock to what it was before the illegal move, i.e. nono time penalty. Second one, I don't know if the rules say. Bubba73(talk), 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
History and codification: I got the best dates I could. Sometimes the sources only said "middle ages", "17th century", etc. There was no specific date for these changes, usually they were adopted in some place and gradually spread. Sometimes it took a couple of centuries to become widespread. Most of the time the rules were different depending on the location. I split the section like that so that "history" would be the history of the rules themselves and codification would be about how they were written into books, etc. One of the sources lists them by groups of changes like done in the history section. The codification section is about rulebooks or when sets of rules were printed, and those are in chronological order. But I don't think mixing the codification with the history of the rules is good because often rules came into existence long before they were codified. Also, the codification section mostly covers more recent events than the history section. Bubba73(talk), 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all of the comments of the reviewers, and I made changes for most of them. For the few I didn't change I commented on them above. Please take another look. Bubba73(talk), 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes! I personally think the article is ready for GA, so I have nominated it for GA-review. The GA process is currently under an important backlog, so it is best to fix a date as early as possible so that our article climbs the waiting queue. I would expect the GA-review to start in one month, which gives us more-than-enough time to fix the remaining small bits here and there. SyG (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The rules continued to be slightly modified until the early 19th century, when they reached essentially their current form" does not appear to match the text, where Staunton's Chess Praxis (1860), Johann Berger (when?) and Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843 onwards) are the main codifications. Of course "essentially" leaves scope for debate. I'd prefer to drop "essentially" and say, "until the mid 19th century".
Well, there have been some small changes since then. Bubba73(talk), 17:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes up to mid 19th century were more significant, as they affected the moves: Bledow concluded multiple queens should be allowed; IIRC one of the rules Staunton wanted to standadise was about castling. - Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A GA reviewer might well complain about 2 lists of short phrases (Wikipedia:Embedded list). I know strict MOS compliance is not required for GA, but reveiwers often push a bit further. I'd de-listify the pieces, and defend the 2nd list as helping beginners to do the set-up step-by-step.
There's a lot of white space at the end, because of the 2 images, which I agree are essential. If there's a smaller version of the "Chess pieces" box, about the height of a "large" chess diagram, I'd put them side-by-side in a right-aligned table (I'll do the table if needed). -- Philcha (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should explain the reason for this section, e.g. these occur in almost all books & articles.
Must explain that algebraic co-ordinates are always from the White player's side of the board, as "5th rank" are relative to each player.
Explanation of "rank" doesn't work for me. The following is a bit long but I think gets the spirit: "Sometimes books and articles highlight one aspect of the board or of a piece's position because it has become stratecially important, for example ..."
Should add e.g. "g file" or "h file" (I picked these as commmon attack routes) or "c file" (battleground of Sicilian and many QP / English / Catalan games).
I don't think "Terminology" is the right title for the current content, which is about e.g. "Identifyng locations on the board".
"nth rank" -- Philcha (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This section was added just a few days ago. I wanted to avoid the reader having to get into algebraic chess notation at this point. However, in this article squares are designated by their algebraic notation name, and ranks and files are mentioned too. I thought it would be good to add a little bit of terminology up front. Of course, list of chess terms has entries for rank and file, so the article can just link to these. In fact it does link in at least a couple of places. So maybe the definition here can be omitted. Bubba73(talk), 17:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "In addition, if the game is being played under a time control, the game ends if one player uses all of his alloted time players lose if they exceed the [[#Time control | time limit]]" would be more accurate.
Done I'm not sure this is in the right place. The business about hands is appropriate for normal over-the-board competition but there are enough exceptions: correspondence & online games; tournaments involving computers; over-the-board play involving physically-handicapped players. I suggest it should be in competition rules, with qualifications like the ones I've mentioned.
OK. I put it these so that the section would have some text in it before the subsections started. Bubba73(talk), 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is in Article 4 of the FIDE rules, which also has touch-move, so I moved it down there. Bubba73(talk), 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs at least one ref, e.g range of pages in any of thousands of decent books.
"The pawn is also involved in the two special moves en passant and promotion, below": I'd prefer and interna link to where there special features are described. If there's no convenient section header or you think it mmigh change, you can use {{anchor}} to create a destination name for the link(s).
Done Forgive me if I'm being dumb, but why is "The king and the rook must be on the same rank" needed? I would think "The player must never have moved either the king or the rook involved in castling" implies this.
This is in the actual rules and the reason is explained in the footnote (otherwise the rule would allow castling with a rook that was the result of a pawn promotion on e8 or e1). There also used to be a sentence in the article about that, but I took it out because it is covered by the footnote.
Could do with a start position diagram, with arrows showing the movement of the pieces involved. Since this would need arrows, would need to a be a normal image rather than a chess diagram template. Then put them side-by-side to minimise white space between sections.
Well, the starting position of the pieces is shown earlier. I'm not sure this is needed. Bubba73(talk), 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear, I didn't mean full board, I meant e.g.
White K on e1, R on h1. Arrow from e1 to g1. Arrow h1 to f1.
Black K on e8, R on a8. Arrow from e8 to c9. Arrow a8 to d8. -- Philcha (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That can't be done with the standard chess diagrams. I think what we have is OK. As an alternative, there could be a diagram showing the kings and rooks in uncastled positions, as castling does. Bubba73(talk), 21:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standard diagram would be OK. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a diagram, but it needs to be formatted better (too much white space). Bubba73(talk), 04:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now side by side - does that work for you? -- Philcha (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Needs to clarify which pawn is which every time, e.g. "player X's pawn".
Done Needs a ref.
I reworded this, see if it is OK now. Has a ref now. Bubba73(talk), 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bugger to explain! How about one of:
If A's pawn moves forward two squares and B has a pawn on his fifth rankand on an adjacent file, B's pawn can capture A's pawn as if A's pawn had only moved one square.
If one player's pawn moves forward two squares and the second player has a pawn on his fifth rankand on an adjacent file, the second player's pawn can capture the first player's pawn as if the fisrt player's p[awn had only moved one square. -- Philcha (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either of those is OK with me. If I had to pick, I'd pick the first one. Bubba73(talk), 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inserted first one. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has a ref. The rules don't state how many pieces you can have, but I think the article does state that it is not limited to captured pieces, so I think this is an obvious consequence of the rules and what the article says. Bubba73(talk), 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious if you've had a little experience, but not to a complete beginner. I saw the discussion of how often this article is accessed. A lot of newbies appear to be using it as a manual. -- Philcha (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added this and the one about double check as footnotes. Incorporate them into the article if you think that would be better. Bubba73(talk), 02:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In main text. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Should mention double check forces king move.
Done Needs a ref.
Has a ref. I don't think this is in the rules, but it is an obvious consequence. Bubba73(talk), 17:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious if you've had a little experience, but not to a complete beginner. I saw the discussion of how often this article is accessed. A lot of newbies appear to be using it as a manual. -- Philcha (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In main text. -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 2nd para about time control, with a larger section to come! I see why there are 2 brief early mentions. I suggest "loses if he / she / it exceeds any time limit that is in force", linking "time limit" to main section as described above.
In "Time controls vary: sometimes each player will have a limited amount of time to make all of their moves whereas in other cases each player may have a certain amount of time to make a certain number of moves. Also, the player may gain a small amount of additional time for each move made", I think "also" is confusing. Does this apply to both fixed time and time per N moves, or to only one, or is it a separate scheme?
"If player A calls attention to the fact that player B is out of time, player A is not out of time, and player A has the possibility to checkmate, even against the most unskilled defense, then player A wins automatically. If player A does not have the possibility of checkmate then the game is a draw" confused me. I'd think that if player A does not have the possibility of checkmate then B loses on time.
If player B's time runs out there must be some sequence of moves that could lead to him being checkmated, otherwise it is a draw. I've reworded these - see if they are OK now. Bubba73(talk), 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read Heisman's Time Management During a Chess Game, which my browser dates as 18 June 2003, and it seem the rules have changed since last time I used a chess clock (I won't confess about when!). Heisman says:
"The most recent side-effect of the sudden death time limit is the US Chess Federation's "insufficient losing chances" rule. This states that if you are NOT playing with a time delay clock and you are about to lose on time in a clearly non-losing position, you can claim a draw." Is this a universal rule or limited to the USCF?
As far as I know, only the USCF has that rule. FIDE is different. Bubba73(talk), 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If you were playing without a time delay - and in a tournament that did not allow "insufficient losing chances" - would you rather be up a Queen in the middlegame with 10 seconds left or be down a Queen with 10 minutes left?" This implies that the "insufficient losing chances" clause is used / ignored at the tournament's discretion.
Well, it is USCF only. Bubba73(talk), 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The FIDE Handbook:
General Rules and Recommendations for Tournaments: Time Control section says, "There is a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one" and mentions no "insufficient losing chances"provision.
But section 6.10 of Laws of Chess says, "Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, 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, even with the most unskilled counterplay." This accords with what you wrote, although it does not explain who judges whether "the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay."
US Chess: Clock Rules apparently allows the tournament director to make a "wet finger" guess about whether player A can force mate. The page carries a warning "This page is part of our old website and the information on it may no longer be current. Please check our home page main.uschess.org for more current information." However I got nothing using their search engine.
My bewildered conclusions:
The article should include "(if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate) even with the most unskilled counterplay".
It says that in effect, about whether or not there being a sequence of legal moves that results in checkmate. Bubba73(talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should state that FIDE's rules do not specify how to decide this.
It should state that the USCF makes it a draw if "The draw shall be awarded if the director believes that a Class C player would have little chance to lose the position against a Master with both having ample time."
That is in a footnote. Bubba73(talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither FIDE nor the USCF page says the "insufficient losing chances" rule may be used or ignored at a tournament's choice, I'd ignore Heiman's implication that tournaments have a choice.
I don't think there is a choice - it depends on USCF or not. I think he was just comparing the differing rules. Bubba73(talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when the rules changed, but Heisman implies it happened after the 1990 Kasparov-Karpov match.
So that readers will understand "lost on time" in older literature, the article should state that before 1990 (if you have no better fix on the date), a player who ran out of time lost, irrespective of how good his / her position was. --
I have rulebooks from different periods, I'll see if I can find out. Bubba73(talk), 22:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a 1978 USCF rulebook which I got about 1982 or 83. It doesn't say anything about insufficient losing chances or possible checkmate against unskilled play. Of course, this was before Sudden Death and before delay clocks. In the margin I wrote "also must have mating material", so that must have been added somewhere around the early 1980s, but I can't be sure. Bubba73(talk), 22:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Might be best to ask Krakatoa when it changed, and for a ref. -- Philcha (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he has 1500 chess books, which is 1300 more than I have. Secondly, I have had periods of chess inactivity that lasted years. Bubba73(talk), 23:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 1992 edition of the Oxford Companion doesn't have it either. Of course, it might not have been updated. Bubba73(talk), 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that FIDE made changes in 1992, so that is probably when it happened, but I don't have any reference. Bubba73(talk), 03:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about correspondence play or play between computers? If not, should "see also" to articles on these, even if you have to create stubs. The alternative would be writing these into this article, which would make it longer, and GA review is (hopefully) imminent.
Correspondence chess is mentioned in the lead. I don't think this article should go into those rules. Bubba73(talk), 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article should not go into those rules.
However their existence is mentioned in the lead, which creates the expectation, or requirement per WP:LEAD, that they should appear in the main text.
I think it would be better to have a "see also" plus a comment in the lead that the "Competition rules" apply only to OTB play between humans.
That also makes me think "Timing" should be moved into "Competition rules", as it only applies to OTB play between humans. -- Philcha (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, something needs to be done about those variations, I need to think about it. Yes, Timing would be better under Competition rules. Bubba73(talk), 22:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the main Timing section is under Competition. SyG said that it should also be mentioned under "End of the game", so I added a short subsection making a forward reference to the main Timing section. Bubba73(talk), 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is - I need new eyes (or worse ...). -- Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Staunton's pland for "Constituent Assembly". The intro to his 1851 tournament book covers this, and IIRC gives examples of some issues: Howard Staunton. The Chess Tournament. Hardinge Simpole. ISBN1843820897. This can be viewed online at or downloaded as PDF from "Google books: The Chess Tournament, by Howard Staunton". Retrieved 2008-06-19.
"FIDE abandoned the idea of a universal set of laws": I think a GA reviewer will ask for page num in Hooper & Whyld. -- Philcha (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got all of this material from the references cited. I don't have von der Lasa's book either, but the reference cited states it. As far as the page number in Hooper & Whyld, my feeling is this: the page number is there to enable someone to check out the reference. In the case of an encyclopedia, if it is under the topic as the article's title, I don't see the need for a page number. Futhermore, there are multiple editions of the encyclopedias, so page numbers change, but the entry titles usually do not. Bubba73(talk), 17:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"there are multiple editions of the encyclopedias, so page numbers change, but the entry titles usually do not" is an excellent point. I share your reservation about page numbers, as UK editions are often slightly different from US. In paleontology articles the page numbers of my copy of Cowen's "History of Life" (UK paperback 3rd ed; latest is 4th; 5th in preparation) are of little use to anyone but me.
Can you give the name(s) of the entry(ies)? -- Philcha (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In H&W it is under "laws, history of", which is sufficiently different from the article title that it probably merits a page number. Bubba73(talk), 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that entry cover all the items in "Codification" as well? (sorry, I should have used the sub-heading "Codification" earlier) -- Philcha (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the information in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs came from H&W. Bubba73(talk), 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
