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.

Medieval rules

Near the beginning of the History section, we are saying "The modern rules first took form in southern Europe during the 13th century, giving more mobility to pieces that previously had more restricted movement (such as the queen and bishop). Such modified rules entered into an accepted form during the late 15th century[85] or early 16th century.[86]" This was recently edited to say "southern Europe"; it formerly said "Italy".

Neither Italy in particular, nor southern Europe in general, is supported by either of the cited references (Hooper & Whyld, and Ruch). To get an idea of what might have changed in the 13th century, I consulted Murray ([1]), pages 456 to 461 (approximately), in which he describes variations of the rules used in Spain and in Lombardy. This is far from unambiguous in support of what we are saying. That is, he does not give a specific date or era, or a specific location, for the origin of the "modern" rules, prior to the late 15th century. Also, I see that we do not at this time cite Murray in support of this sentence. So it's pretty mysterious. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

</ref> correction?

Fourth paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess#Codification :

Some other differences are noted above.</ref>

Don't know what happened but I guess either someone forgot to put some reference or it just doesn't belong there. If it's the latter then it should be removed, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52C0:515:4C93:3BE5:2883 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Text change

In the table for pieces the text "Number" should be changed to "Amount" since that is less ambiguous. 68.118.148.8 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe "quantity". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It is correct to use "amount" for a mass noun, but for something you can count, you're supposed to use "number". It's not ambiguous.

I don't think "quantity" is any better than "amount". Bruce leverett (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Stick with "number". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Laws of chess"

Is it necessary to list "laws of chess" as another term for "rules of chess"? It doesn't seem like an alternative name that actually provides additional information. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that is what FIDE calls them. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to read what Hooper & Whyld have to say about this. The Oxford Companion to Chess has separate entries for laws and rules.

"rules, conventions for playing competitive chess, distinct from the LAWS which are inherent in the game. Until 1984 the the Laws and the Rules were given separately, but then FIDE amalgamated them."

This is an interesting distinction that I hadn't considered before. This article covers both rules and laws, which is the same as the modern FIDE practice. Quale (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we mention this distinction in the article? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Possibly but I'd be more comfortable if there was more than one source. Hooper & Whyld is excellent but occasionally eccentric in its terminology, e.g. "co-ordinate notation" for algebraic notation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Max that the distinction doesn't need to be in the article unless it can be found in other sources. I mentioned the Hooper & Whyld distinction because it was new to me and I found it interesting. The distinction is not baseless, but I think in common usage "Laws of Chess" and "Rules of Chess" are used interchangeably. The English translation of the official FIDE laws from 1974 given in Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess shows the laws were organized into two parts as noted by Hooper & Whyld: Part 1: General Laws, and Part 2: Additional Rules for Competitions. Quale (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

En passant

@ISaveNewspapers: What is the idea of this change? In an en passant capture, the capturing pawn does not replace the captured pawn on its square. So, I would have thought the sentence needed that additional qualification, awkward as it may have been. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Consider the difference between the following sentences:

"If player A's piece moves to a square occupied by player B's piece, then player B's piece is captured."

"If player B's piece is captured, then player A's piece has moved to the square occupied by player B's piece."

The first sentence is effectively what the sentence in the article says. However, I think you have mistakenly taken the interpretation in the second sentence. And I'm pretty sure I did in the past, too, because I think I'm actually the one who added that qualification. But if you take a careful reading, it actually implies: "In some or all instances of the occurrence of an en passant capture, a piece, attacking an enemy piece, moves to the enemy piece's square but does not capture the enemy piece." This statement is false, which is why I removed the qualification that implied it. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I see your logic. Comparing with the USCF and FIDE rules, I guess that if they can get away with not mentioning en passant at this juncture, we can too. Looking at the history of this article, I see that you didn't exactly add the qualification -- there was a mention of en passant in there almost since the beginning; but I don't think it will be missed. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Resigning

Since the rules valid from 1 January 2023 a resignation is not an unconditional loss anymore. When a player resigns, but the opponent has no mate, the player gets the draw:

5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw.

The part in italics has been added. As such I suggest adapting "Either player may resign at any time, conceding the game to the opponent." Dlbbld (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Illegal move - time penalty

With the rules valid from 1 January 2023 the time penalty in Rapid for an illegal move has been changed from two minutes to one minute (article A.3).

I am not sure what is better to reflect this in detail or to phrase the article more generally, omitting time penalty duration. Dlbbld (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)