Talk:Rules of chess

Ordered lists

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

Time - needs improvment to article

Visited this page to try to get an idea of different typical time controls clubs and tournaments use. Yes I know it varies, but an indication would be informative.

Types of dead position

The article states, "There are two kinds of dead position:". This statement would generally be understood to mean that every dead position can be categorized into exactly one of the mentioned types. However, the two mentioned types are "has a piece combination that the USCF specifically mentions as constituting insufficient material" and "has a piece combination that could be used to form a non-dead position", and those types overlap at "has king and some-color-squared bishop against king and same-color-squared bishop". In my opinion, it'd make a lot more sense for the two types to be "has a piece combination that could be used to form a non-dead position" and "has a piece combination that could not be used to form a non-dead position". ISaveNewspapers (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The double negative in your suggested rewrite defeats easy comprehension, IMO. --IHTS (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Seconded, pedantry does not improve articles. FIDE rules do not refer to "insufficient material" or otherwise distinguish between types of dead positions. The only reason to list the piece combinations and distinguish it from blocked positions is explanatory, so we definitely don't need to complicate the wording. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The classification is not even complete. It is possible to have positions that are dead because of a forced stalemate or forced insufficient material, but that currently have legal forward play or sufficient material. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean that's literally the exact way I want it to be worded; I was just conveying the idea. How about this: "positions where no arrangement of material would allow for mate" and "positions where material could be arranged to allow for mate, but no such arrangement can be reached." ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

James Congdon vs Eugene Delmar, 1880

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

Dead position after 44.Qg8+!

I know what you mean by the second, but it just seems very confusing. If we must make a division, I suggest we follow Andrew Buchanan's classification (composer of many problems hinging on the dead-position rule): positions whose "cause of death" has to do with (1) insufficient material, (2) stalemate, or (3) blockage. For the second, consider the diagram; Black is forced to give stalemate, so the position is dead. But it's not actually a stalemate on the board. Of course, in 1880 there wasn't yet a dead position rule, so 44...Kxg8 was played. Although I suppose stalemates are vacuously dead positions, where no sequence of legal moves can lead to checkmate because there aren't any legal moves at all (so such a sequence could only be of length zero) and the position on the board is not a checkmate (ruling out the length-zero sequence of moves). Technically this is still not everything possible: in theory one could have a position that is dead because either insufficient material or stalemate must result, but one can choose which. But at least that covers all the major reasons. Double sharp (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The edit I initially made was just to remove the "king and bishop against king and bishop with bishops on the same color" bullet point; I imagine that the resulting version of the section would be easy to understand to most people. Of course, when my edit was reverted, the reason provided in the reversion's edit summary had nothing to do with that; per the edit summary, my edit was reverted due to an inconsistency with the USCF rules. The problem here is that this article and the USCF rules seem to be referring to different things in the first place. Indeed, the USCF rules classify every dead position as a position with "insufficient material"; the listed position types ("king against king", "king against king and minor piece", and "king and bishop against king and bishop with bishops on the same square color") seem only to serve as examples of such. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The FIDE rules define "dead position" (5.2.2). The USCF rules do not. If we are going to define that term, it should be a quotation or a direct paraphrase of the FIDE definition. We should not be blazing new trails in defining terms.

On the other hand, the USCF rules define "insufficient material to continue", and "insufficient material to win on time", while the FIDE rules do not. In 14D, the rules give four cases of insufficient material to continue, but the fourth case is a catch-all, which includes the first three among others.

Generally speaking, we should be hewing closely to both the FIDE and the USCF rules, and of course, mentioning where they differ. That's not easy to do here, but we should try. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate this question a lot, as it helped me to realize how my mentioned wording overcomplicates things; thanks! It is also original research in the sense that chess literature does not make this distinction. So removed. Dlbbld (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Rules of chess

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This 2008 listing contains significant uncited material, failing GA criterion 2b).

This is likely to be fairly easy to fix if you have the relevant literature to hand, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is vague. I have been a GA reviewer, and I would never just wave my hand at an article and say, "not enough citations". Can you suggest where to look? Bruce leverett (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have several editions of the FIDE rulebook and the USCF rulebook. There are 101 citations. What in particular needs a citation? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally, all paragraphs should end with a citation, unless it's a WP:SKYISBLUE thing. This article has a lot of paragraphs without a citation. Spinixster (chat!) 02:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay since I worked on this, real life gets in the way. I am compiling a list of places where the citation of sources is or may be inadequate. I will post it, and then, work on it.

There are a couple of citations of Eric Schiller's Official Rules of Chess. I do not have my own copy of this, but looking at this review (by a reputable critic), I am concerned that it may be a less than reliable source, especially for the things we are citing it for, such as the descriptions of the knight move and of checkmate. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed the good work you are doing! I have a copy of Schiller's book, but it is packed away in a box. And, yes, is is not as reliable or authorative as other sources, like FIDE and USCF. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:27, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

List of possible citation issues

Citations of the USCF rules must be updated. We are citing Just 2014, which is the 6th edition. The most recent edition is the 7th. Moreover, the chapters that we cite in this article are available online.

I have updated most citations of (Just 2014) to Just 2019, except for some in the History section, which I could not find in either the old or the new editions of USCF. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Initial setup

First pgph looks OK.

Second pgph

Diagram, table of piece names, numbers, and symbols:

Description of placement of pieces:

I think the right way to support these is to give a reference to the FIDE rules at the start of this section, as is done in Chess. Instead we have a single citation of Schiller at the end of the section. I am not sure I like this, but it may be adequate for now.

Neither FIDE, nor USCF, includes a verbal description of the initial positions of the pieces (e.g. "rooks are placed on outside corners, etc."). They each just give a diagram. We may have made up the verbal description ourselves, or perhaps it is copied from Schiller or even some other source. It looks like a reasonable thing to include, although I am not sure the words "inside" and "outside" convey the intended meanings in this context.

Setup mnemonics: these are sourced to Schiller. They are in common use and I assume those pages of Schiller correctly support the citation.

Gameplay

First pgph, defining White and Black, specifying alternation, defining end of play, noting time control: does not need to be sourced.

Second pgph, determining who plays White: This needs to be sourced. Perhaps it came from Schiller? If not, some other source must be found.

Movement

Basic moves

If a reference to the FIDE rules is given at the start of the Initial Setup section as recommended above, it may be sufficient sourcing for this section as well. Instead, we currently have a citation of Schiller at the end of the last sentence.

Explanatory note a (about role of captured pieces in promotion): this should be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Descriptions of moves of each piece, and of capturing: these are sourced to Schiller. They are correct, and I assume the pages of Schiller correctly support the citation. I am not entirely happy with these; I think clearer descriptions can be found elsewhere. But for GA reassessment, that would be optional.

The citation comes at the end of the last sentence, "The pawn is also involved ... promotion." This sentence is indented too far; and I am not sure it is clear that the citation applies to the whole itemized list of pieces.

Castling

There are some citations here. But, the description of the move, and the definition of "castling rights", need to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

En passant

This paragraph needs to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk)

Promotion

This paragraph needs to be sourced. The two existing citations are for the discussion of what to do if the desired piece is not available. This discussion, as it stands, is applicable only to tournaments with arbiters; this qualification should be stated.

Source for definition done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Check

The first paragraph needs to be sourced.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The term "Block" is not as common in English chess literature as "Interpose". The latter should be defined instead of, or in addition to, the former.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

End of the game

Checkmate -- this appears to be adequately sourced.

Resigning

In the FIDE rules, "resign" is just defined as "give up", and there is no discussion of exactly how to communicate this. In the USCF rules, there is some discussion, but it is much shorter than what we present here. Our text should cleanly separate what is in the rules (resigning means giving up) from what is common practice (e.g. tipping the king).

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Stopping clocks is not applicable unless clocks are used, and writing on a scoresheet is not applicable unless scoresheets are used. Clocks and scoresheets are used in FIDE and USCF sanctioned games (except that scoresheets are not used in blitz), but readers of Wikipedia may not be aware of FIDE and USCF, and should not have to learn about them in order to learn the rules of chess.

Discussion of random gestures for resignation removed. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Draws

This section is disorganized for maximum confusion. The citations are not adequate. The fifty-move rule and threefold repetition should be mentioned in the bulleted list, and should cite the relevant articles in the FIDE rules.

Reorganized, though not exactly as described above. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Dead position

The reference to "insufficient losing chances" should cite the appropriate section of the USCF rules, and should be clarified.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Flag-fall

This whole paragraph should be replaced by a forward reference to the "Timing" section. As mentioned above, Wikipedia readers should be able to learn the rules of chess without having to learn about chess clocks, score sheets, arbiters, and other artifacts of sanctioned play.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving the pieces

This section appears to be adequately sourced. However, it doesn't make sense except in the context of the touch-move rule, and in particular, the touch-move rule as enforced in a sanctioned event. Thus, it should either come after the section about the touch-move rule, or within that section.

Moved to the beginning of the "Competitive" section. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Touch-move rule

The high-level description, in which touch-move is described as a "fundamental principle", and the placement of this section under "Gameplay" rather than "Competitive rules of play", are improvements. Even in informal, unsanctioned games, touch-move is widely respected.

The first paragraph must cite a source; and the "special considerations" for castling and pawn promotion must be described, not just alluded to.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Competitive rules of play

"Competitive" is used in this document and in the FIDE rules to refer to organized, sanctioned, chess tournaments and matches. The word is used that way, although that may not be its dictionary meaning, or its meaning in non-sporting contexts.

The first paragraph should explain this usage, and should summarize the consequences: clocks (although these are also used in informal play, especially blitz), keeping score, arbiters (and directors), and adjournment.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Other things currently in the first paragraph should be moved to one or more additional paragraphs, for clarity. These include OTB versus correspondence versus online, adaptations for disabled players, different rules for rapid and blitz, chess 960, and computer chess.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It may be implicit from the wording of the first paragraph, but perhaps it should be stated explicitly, that the rules given in the following sections, unless otherwise indicated, are applicable only to FIDE sanctioned events. Other governing bodies may have sharply different rules on the same topics.

Timing

The first paragraph should cite at least one source. The only current citation, by the last sentence, evidently applies only to that sentence. (In addition, it's wrong; it should be page 22 of the Arbiter's Manual, not page 54.)

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph referring to USCF Rule 14E should, of course, cite that rule.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Recording moves

This section starts with a diagram and an indication of how to label the squares of the board, but it doesn't explain that this is relevant to algebraic notation. Of course, the diagram and text are simply copied from Algebraic notation (chess). It may be an improvement to just remove them from this article.

Not done; this is outside the scope of the GA reassessment, and I don't want that to get bogged down in discussion of controversial changes. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is an illustration of a score sheet by Capablanca in descriptive notation, but no further explanation of descriptive notation, so the score sheet would be completely illegible for most readers. This score sheet illustration should instead be used in Descriptive notation. A better choice of scoresheet for the present article would be the scoresheet from Reti vs. Capablanca, New York 1924, which is in German algebraic notation (Planilha Réti e Capablanca.gif).

Not done; this is outside the scope of the GA reassessment, and I don't want that to get bogged down in discussion of controversial changes. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I have updated a citation of USCF rules, section 15A variation 1, to cite the most recent and accessible version. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Adjournment

This section must cite the relevant section of the FIDE rules.

Done. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Irregularities

These sections look OK (at first glance).

Equipment

This section has only two citations, and needs several more.

Quite a few citations of sources added. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

History

These sections look generally OK.

Bruce leverett (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that I have covered all the sourcing deficiencies mentioned above. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Article exposition

There is a fundamental problem in the article setup. The article title is "Rules of chess". Then, the article declares the FIDE rules as the "Rules of chess", which is improper. Further, the article refers to the FIDE rules throughout without making this explicit in the beginning. I think it would be more appropriate to rename the article "FIDE rules of chess" and redirect "Rules of Chess" to it to reflect the content. Besides USCF pointers, the article focuses on FIDE rules alone and is not as general as the title suggests. Dlbbld (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I would think that describing other sets of rules besides USCF and FIDE would fall under the heading of "comprehensive". I was under the impression that comprehensiveness is explicitly excluded from the GA criteria, but is more appropriate when considering the FA criteria.

Not that I would object to a better exposition of the differences between different rule sets, worldwide and for different flavors of chess (correspondence, internet server, etc.). But achieving this should not be in the critical path of the GA reassessment. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the "Rules of chess", so at the universal level, are. For example, I know that the Touch-move rule in my country is commonly known. Even in the most informal games, the players know this rule, though they often do not enforce it. I would really like to know how this is in other countries. Is it a universal rule? An article titled "Rules of Chess" should answer that. For it does not, it does not hold what it promises. This is why I say the exposition is wrong.

Again, to declare the FIDE rules as the "Rules of chess. " and then the problem to be solved is wrong.

The exposition must be correct and clear. Something like mentioning that is nearly impossible to specify the "Rules of chess" at an universal level. The FIDE rules sort of coming most closest. So, the article now describes the FIDE rules. But then it needs a discussion about why not to title the article "FIDE rules of chess" to start with. Dlbbld (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

AT the risk of repeating myself, the article can be helpful to readers, and can even meet the GA criteria, without answering all interesting questions about the subject. Carefully read those criteria, and compare them with your own expectations for this article.

Suppose that, indeed, the article must answer the questions you asked about the touch-move rule. Do you think you can find reliable sources which would give those answers? If you have already found such sources, or know where to find them, then I will not hinder your efforts. But if you don't know where to find such answers, you are turning a routine Wikipedia clean-up procedure into an open-ended and perhaps never-ending quest. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Aha, you are concerned about the process. I am actually concerned if it's a good article. That's a clash! It's so funny that the GA criteria don't even require correctness. So there is not much that I can help. It's such an obviously terribly bad article (in respect to Wikipedia), I cannot even be too serious about it :-) Dlbbld (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I too found it amusing, when I was a GA reviewer, that the criteria omit many of the factors that can make an article better or worse. This doesn't mean, however, that you can't go in and fix things; it only means that you should do your fixing in a way that doesn't disrupt the GA process; sometimes this means just waiting until that process is over.

I was particularly interested in some of the agenda items you listed, but have since deleted, such as the distinction between "basic" rules and "competition" rules, in which we are drawing the distinction differently from how FIDE draws it, and FIDE and USCF also differ from each other about this (and differ from us). Also, I'm glad you noticed that all of our citations of FIDE are about 15-20 years out of date. As you can see, the level of attention that has been paid to this article over the last 20 years has not always been satisfactory. There is more work to do in Wikipedia than there are editors to do it -- quite a bit more. When I saw your agenda, I was very heartened: maybe somebody will actually do something about this article. I assure you that if you can find time for that, I will pay attention to it (the article is on my watch list). Bruce leverett (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As I should have guessed, it's more complicated than just a bunch of citations that say "FIDE 2008" instead of "FIDE 2023". Many of the FIDE citations refer to the 2018 version. Also, "FIDE 2008" is a book citation, with an ISBN. However, this ISBN isn't very useful; doing an Amazon search with it gets no results, while doing a "Google Books" search gets me apparently to a 1997 version of the rules published in Australia. The citation itself includes a URL, which takes me to the current (2023) rules on the FIDE website.

I will try to bring some uniformity to the FIDE citations. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have gone through the citations of the FIDE rules, fixing them to cite the latest (2023) version and to use the sfn template. I have also fixed the citations of the Arbiters' Manual to use the sfn template. I found a couple of places where I did not think the citation was correct, so I used cn templates; of course, these must be fixed to get past GA reassessment.

I haven't yet addressed the original complaint, that there were some paragraphs that didn't end with a citation (or didn't have any citations). Still planning to get to that, of course. I do not mind if other editors "get there first" and fix or add some citation before I get to it. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dlbbld: Regarding this edit, the reason I did not cite 7.5.1 for this, was because neither 7.5.1, nor any other section, explicitly says that irregularities cannot be corrected after the game; one can only infer that from what those sections don't say. Inferring some conclusion from what a source doesn't say is similar to WP:SYNTH, in which one infers a conclusion from what two sources say, when neither source explicitly states that conclusion. I don't know if Wikipedia guidance explicitly forbids this, but as a reader, I noticed it immediately, and if I were an inexperienced chess player, I would still be puzzled. However, if other editors think this is OK, I'll go along. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I see the problem. Thank you for pointing it out. On a high level, I agree that the statement cannot be inferred from the article. As such, I consider it best to remove the sentence altogether, for I have never seen a source stating this explicitly.

However I would still clarify this on a rule technical level. The FIDE rules are tournament rules. One main goal is maintaining a good tournament flow.

The wording "during a game" is also used for piece displacement, clock setting and initial piece placement. There is also no explicit wording for how claims in such respect should be treated after a game. It's, however, common sense that if players start to claim such things after the end of a game, tournament flow would heavily suffer, so implicitly, it's not intended. That checkmate, resignation, stalemate, dead position and mutual draw agreement all contain the wording "This immediately ends the game" is relevant in this respect. As it makes any claims after such an event as after the game, so not "during a game".

To summarize, the wording is undoubtedly meant exclusively. Otherwise, it would be in opposition to maintaining a reasonable tournament flow. But the wording fails to convey this as understandable to the reader. As there is no rule clarification from FIDE (they stopped that fifty years ago), it cannot be part of Wikipedia. Dlbbld (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Edited too less specific, matching reference. Agree that an encyclopedia must reflect blurryness of the source and not clarify without references.

Comments related to USCF rules

For a standard article, the many comments regarding USCF should have better exposition. Only at the end, it is explicitly stated that the list of differences is not complete: "The rules of national FIDE affiliates (such as the United States Chess Federation, or USCF) are based on the FIDE rules, with slight variations.[99][i][100] Some other differences are noted above."

Additionally, the article omits major differences to the USCF rules, such as in relation to dead positions and piece displacement, while including other, less game-decision-relevant points. This information is fundamental for not being misleading. Dlbbld (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The FIDE vs. USCF issues are touched upon above in Talk:Rules of chess#Types of dead position. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion does not change the situation. It is only touching on one issue, and is even wrong. First, I must call you on your statement in this discussion: "The FIDE rules define "dead position" (5.2.2). The USCF rules do not."

The USCF rules under 14D specify, "The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side (effective 1-1-19)".

The above is exactly the FIDE definition of dead position. So, while the USCF rules do not give it a name (right), they crystal clearly use what is meant by dead positoin to define the rules.

The statement objected "There are two kinds of dead position" is written by me and is correct. The unclarity in the discussion shows, however, no common ground. Dlbbld (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

When I linked to Talk:Rules of chess#Types of dead position, I was not trying to cut across what you were saying, but to reinforce it. I figured that you would already be familiar with that discussion, but other readers, not already embroiled in editing of chess articles, might find this context useful.

The language of USCF rule 14D4 does indeed correspond to the language of FIDE rule 5.2.2. But the USCF rule does not call this a "dead position". The USCF also has rules for "Insufficient Material to Win on Time" (14E), which are completely separate from "Insufficient Material to continue" (14D), and do not recognize dead positions. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Both FIDE and USCF draw the game immediately for a dead position. That makes the term relevant when speaking about USCF rules and makes me so obsessed with finding good wording up to personal research.

As you mentioned on timeout, there are differences. Thanks for going into that, though.

I really assumed "GA criteria" also mandates the article to be good in the general sense. Thanks for the friendly explanation. So, getting the invitation for the "Good article reassessment, " I mentioned all the points I found not good with this naive assumption. I'm sorry to clutter up your process. Dlbbld (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete sections like "Illegal position"

It's crucial for the article to address incomplete sections that fail to fully explain key concepts, like 'Illegal position'. A detailed explanation of its importance, as specified in FIDE's article A.5.4, should be incorporated to ensure comprehensive coverage. While I added the term because it's essential, it was uncomplete and also not completed. That shows to me the need for a closer review and completion of all sections. Dlbbld (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfinished section "Variations"

This section is unfinished. It is also important that one can relate to "variation" only in the general sense; it is not a term used in the rules.

What is here mentioned as "variation" is one of the several possibilities the FIDE rules foresee to parameterize a tournament. Other examples are the default time for losing the game when not arriving at the board (default zero) and applying the rules from Guidelines III (default no), possibly one or two more. So, the section must mention all these "variations" to be complete. Or simply just remove it. Dlbbld (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "Illegal position" and "Variations" sections have the problems that you described. For the purpose of GA reassessment, one could consider getting rid of them altogether. I agree that a proper exposition of "Illegal position" would be an interesting addition to the article, especially as it relates to retrograde analysis problems, etc. However, this is another thing that shouldn't be in the critical path of GA reassessment. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, bounce away the two. But still. What concerns me is that such sections have existed for years, and there has been no improvement. I can only speak for a few sections. So, I can't say for other sections, but I fear there might be the same. For example, the History and Codification sections are heavy in length and poor in structure. From constant work, I would expect at least some structure, like subsections. I am not too optimistic here. Now, maybe fear is not a good enough argument.

But in general, from such observations, I come again to the conclusion that the article exposition is not clear. Why must the FIDE competition rules even be part? I think when one relates to "Rules of chess" in very general, whatever that is, the part until that is well. But why then to include the FIDE competition rules? That is surely not universal anymore. Have such discussions been held? Dlbbld (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Bruce leverett, thank you very much for your work on this article; it is much appreciated. I have tagged just a few places which need citations—they are generally for the simplest things which don't fall under WP:SKYISBLUE, so it shouldn't be too onerous. After those are fixed, this GAR can be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  To be honest a lot of these tags do look like "sky is blue" stuff to me. A source for the initial setup, for example, is any book ever written about chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I have been traveling since 24 Feb and will not be able to get to this until 29 Feb. Looking forward to it; but I would not object if MaxBrowne2 wants to step in in the mean time. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I admit that for an actual chess player, such as MaxBrowne2 or myself, it looks and feels strange to be citing chapter and verse while describing the rules of the game. One must consider where we are and why we are doing this. I didn't learn chess from an encyclopedia, and I don't think anyone else does either. (One of the reasons I seldom edit the articles about chess openings is that I didn't learn chess openings from an encyclopedia, either.) But if an experienced Wiki editor asked for more citations, that means to me that people are reading this article and taking it seriously, and the only constructive thing for me to do is put in the citations. The silver lining is that I have found some errors and some places where we say things that aren't warranted. Also it is an interesting exercise to explain to non-chess-players why one is expected to capture, castle, and promote with one hand. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

  I've worked through your list. I'll wait a day or two for objections, then I'll close this. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Choosing colors

In the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, we describe the method of choosing colors by concealing a pawn in each hand and having the opponent pick a hand. Strictly speaking, this is not part of the rules, and it could be left out of this article. I am interested in keeping it, though, because it is such an ancient and yet completely up-to-date part of the lore. My problem is finding a source. I could probably find it in some chess book for beginners, but I don't have any of them in my home library. When I looked online, all I found was stuff about online chess, where this obviously isn't applicable. Can anyone find it? Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember it in the rules that came with my first chess set, $2.99 from Holdson (note incorrect setup). But it's a strictly informal practice. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That website has a "download the rules of chess" button, and the rules I downloaded didn't mention choosing colors. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Did you manage to find a source for this Bruce leverett? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to return to this before declaring victory.

Searching just now through "reliable sources" that I could think of, I didn't find it. I guess it is in the oral tradition. (It was added to this article in this edit.) I will remove it. But if someone finds it in the literature, who knows. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Quale has added a source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dead positions

I think it would be satisfactory to treat king v. king, king and knight v. king, and king and bishop v. king as WP:BLUE. I may add a sentence to explain what I am doing here. Examining Fine's Basic Chess Endings and the endgame sections of Philidor and Staunton, they do not even mention these three endings; that is, they are counting on their readers, who are expected to be complete novices, to understand these endgames without being told.

On the other hand, I don't think the same way about king and bishop v. king and bishop, both bishops being on the same color. I had never thought of this endgame before I read this part of the Wikipedia article, and having done so, I had to think for a minute to convince myself that it is, indeed, dead. I don't see this mentioned in endgame texts, but I don't think it is WP:BLUE either. I think the right thing to do is just remove this from the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the glossary of chess article in a long time, but I think that a deal position is defined there. The Rules article could just say that a dead position is a draw and link to the glossary, without giving examples. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

19th century

I do not know what source or sources the paragraph about the history of the rules during the 19th century was based on. I have added a citation to the corresponding chapter of Murray's A History of Chess, but I am not sure that this covers all the ground. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

High-level synopsis instead of detail-level synopsis

Scattered content across Wikipedia's chess articles, like here on chess history (without referencing History_of_chess), lacks cohesion due to insufficient cross-referencing. The article has different levels of detail level information, making it difficult for the reader. Dlbbld (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

Please change the positions of the queens on the board diagram so that the queens are on their own color under the INITIAL SETUP section. Reason: shortly after that diagram the text says to have the queen on her own color and instructs to look at the above diagram but the queens are on the opposite color thus creating confusion and contradiction. Thank you so much for helping this newbie chess player et. al. 174.58.160.178 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Already done The queens are placed correctly, although at first glance I thought it was wrong too. Please see the table matching the symbols to piece names - the queen is the one with multiple spikes on the crown. Jamedeus (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Castling discussion

@Quale: @Jasper Deng: The Moving the pieces section is about nuances of the touch-move rule, which itself is not applicable in the obvious way to chess played online. Since I have only had glancing contact with online chess, I don't know if there is some issue in it that is comparable in importance to touch-move; if there is, I would be interested to know, perhaps it is relevant to this article. I gather that a player castles on some servers by moving the king, and the server moves the rook, and it may be of interest to discuss that somewhere in this article, but it is not directly relevant to this section. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why I didn't mention it. What we need to highlight is that castling is the one case where we need to distinguish between being considered a single move in the sense of a turn or ply, but two in terms of hand movements. The existing wording is misleading because it could imply that castling takes two turns.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I see I have been slightly confused; we are not in the Moving the pieces section, we are way earlier. I think the real problem here is that the sentence "It is not allowed to move both king and rook in the same time ..." does not belong in this section, because we haven't even talked about touch-move, let alone about moving the pieces. I think it would be OK to just remove that sentence; I'll do it tomorrow if there are no objections. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about the distinction between the underlying mathematical rules of the game (how the pieces move etc) and the practical rules of the game (touch-move, time controls etc). Stuff related to the touch-move rule and how it applies to castling doesn't belong in the "movement" section. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur, except that I agree with Bruce that we do not need the sentence they're referring to either, to be clear.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)