Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't rook the real name of the "castle", so shouldn't it say Rook: (sometimes called castle) rather than the other way round? -- Tango 22:28, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draw of the game[change source]

It is mentioned that

"If a player checks another player in the same way three times, than a stalemate is declared. This is called stalemate by three-fold repetition."

This is misguiding. The three fold repetition arises when a position is repeated thrice on the board. It need not be a check. It is also not necessary that the same position should arise in consecutive moves. The chess rule only says that the same postion should arise thrice.

Do these things...[change source]

1. Moves of pieces should be taught by diagrams with words merely as supplements. This is essential.  Done

2. Intro should be shorter, and state general ideas; details to body of text.  Done

"Chess is a strategic board game between two players.[ref] The game is a kind of battle, in which side attempts to mate the opposing king."
"Chess is about 1500 years old.[ref] Its history falls into two parts. From about 6th to 15th centuries the game was played by Indo-Arabic rules; from about 1475 the rules changed, and the modern game was born... [ref]

3. Do not deal with chess variants in this article, except to say variants exist. There are several dozen variants, and there's no way you can deal with them properly here. Ditto with chess and literature, chess and film...  Done

4. Strategy section has good parts, but you've failed to say the most obvious things: strategy exists because there's no way a player can achieve a win by direct simple action. If the scholar's mate shows how to mate, then the next step is to show why you can never get it in practice. All progress in a game is indirect, yet towards the goal all the same. Strategy is how to win despite resistance. You have to say these things!  Done

4. The history section later has too much pointless details on words and names, and gives no conception of the original game. I will help you with this.  Done by the work of User:Amandajm

5. Coming to the present day, you need to deal with the world of chess as it really is. Topics to cover include: computer data bases; computer playing engines; rating systems; master ranks; junior chess...

The article does have a future as a GA, but needs quite a bit of work. I will provide references and some text on the historical side. The idea here might be: create a better section for the history, then maybe link it to another page (yet to be created) which would deal with the hstory in more detail. Same idea for some of the other topics, chess variants being an obvious case.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Putting a pet article up for GA is like getting slapped in the face by a wet fish. You'll never forget it! But the comments are necessary to get from where you are to where you're going. Good luck!

With no. 1, the en wiki has some diagrams, but are in templates that don't exist here. I have no clue how to make a template so you will have to help me with that one! ;) I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll tell me what templates you need, I'll import them for you. Lauryn 16:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks quite confusing. Good luck with it! ;) [1] I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Special:Import is good times. :) Lauryn 16:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or not.. none of the images for the squares exist here. I'll see what I can do. Lauryn 17:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will also need Template:Chess diagram small if it isn't to much trouble! i can't tell the difference but just in case i need it. better get them all done now. Thanks again for your help! I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) That one worked out a lot better, so it's probably something from the first import that I'm missing. Lauryn 17:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still having trouble with it, you may stop. I got what I needed. Thanks again! I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. :) I'm still probably going to tinker with it just to see if I can get it to work, but I'm glad that you have what you need. :) Lauryn 19:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx much! I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 13:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

En passant[change source]

This must be illustrated. Anyone who has taught the game to children knows this is one of the stumbling-blocks. Special moves should be placed before Notation. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castling[change source]

Why is this not illustrated? Same reason as en passant. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References[change source]

A mess. Don't just put author's name, put the full reference so a reader can find the book or website. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put what I could. The website names are there. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you cited the websites correctly, but lots of the book references don't have an ISBN number. Like the first reference: Leibs (2004), p. 92. The next one is in a similar situation. I'll try to find some references (I doubt I'll be able to find any - I'll try though), but the book refs need be corrected. Classical Esther 02:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better have a section on computer chess engines like Fritz, because most children use them nowadays. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial review[change source]

  • Why doesn't the lead have any refs? Classical Esther added one. I will add more.  Done
  • Ref 1 is incomplete; no publisher. Also use {{cite book}} Deleted them for now.  Done
  • Same with number 2  Done
  • Numbers 4, 5, 24 and 25 have the same problem
  • Why is WikiAnswers reliable? Found another source.  Done
  • There are 12(!) red links, create some of those, please. I count 6. Nevertheless, I will create them.  Done

Many more problems with references. I haven't reviewed the contents yet. Pmlineditor  16:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With no. 2-4 I don't know how to fix it. I just copied them over from en. Should I delete them? I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 18:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Pmlineditor pointed out what I just said above. Yes, I think you should strike them out for now until we can find better refs. Classical Esther 02:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the twelve figure included the refs. I'm not sure whether they are counted or not. Pmlineditor  07:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure they do. If they do, I should plainly unlink them. It was what I was told to do by TRM or Purple89 (I can't remember) with the article Joe Biden. I-on|I-Гalk |I-PrФjecГ 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I fixed most of the links to the wiktionary, and will fix a bit more. I hope it helped, if not, just cross this done comment out. Belinda 08:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed all of them. Only one or two are left, but those are very necessary and important. :) Belinda 10:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is whether the remaining are red links or not. If not, that is fine, but don't delink if the words exist in Wikt. Pmlineditor  10:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs are odd. Some of them use the publisher (Helium) as title while others call the publisher Helium.Inc. Just use Helium for publisher and provide a descriptive title/title of the url you are using.

 Done I fixed the ref publisher names, changing them all (except for one, which had the same title as a different ref) to Helium as you so smartly said to, and I also provided a more descriptive title instead of just "Helium." I hope that's what you were saying to do... Belinda 06:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I did all of that below, I think, where The Rambling Man so smartly asked for the publisher in the refs. Belinda 08:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[change source]

  • Square links to a dab page.

 Done fixed this one... I made it link to Square (geometry). :) But board.. There isn't any board in the "chess board" type. I will make that article later... Belinda 06:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So does board.

 Done link that one to board (wood), a new article I made... A quick stub. Belinda 07:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "There are also many different kinds of games like chess." not sure how useful this sentence is at all.

 Done Good point: I took that sentence out. Classical Esther 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "length of time to plan each move." not just to plan it, they have to play it as well.

 Done fixed it to "length of time to plan each move and put it to action." Belinda 06:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some words need linking really, Gupta, Sanskrit, Persian"...

 Done Linked and done. Classical Esther 06:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "words "Chess" and "check" - chess doesn't need to be capitalised.

 Doneuncapitalized, you're very right. I hope I can be of at least a little help.. Belinda 06:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "tradeers " do you mean "traders"?

 Done I changed it to traders... Belinda 07:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "FIDE" explain why the initials are FIDE and not WCF.

 Done Explained why the initials are FIDE. Belinda 06:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "FIDE Handbook, section Laws" - "in the section "Laws of Chess"...

 Done Reworded it according to your feasible suggestion. Classical Esther 06:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in the capitalisation of pieces. The movement section has them all lower case while the rest of the article has them upper case.

 Done Capitalized all the piece names in the movement section.:) Classical Esther 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ""en passant" (= in passing)." worth mentioning this is French.

 Done Classical Esther 02:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some images appear to be thumbs, some don't, some don't have captions. Please be consistent with all images in the article.

 Done I don't see any thumbs, to say the truth, only a few frames and the others are just templates. I added the captions, tho'. Belinda 08:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "if all of the following things hold" no need for the word "things"

 Done I fixed it to "if all these rules are done"... If that's right, I hope. Belinda 06:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I fixed that mistake because it sounded weird. Now it is "if all the following rules are kept". Belinda 06:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The checkmate caption could be expanded to explain why it was checkmate.

 Done I explained the checkmate caption, though I don't know if I did it correctly... Belinda 07:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "is called the Fifty move rule" Fifty-move rule.

 Done Changed it thus. Classical Esther 03:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three-fold or Threefold - be consistent.

 Done Switched all to threefold. Classical Esther 06:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why so much italic text in the notation section? Makes it confusing to read.

 Done I've un-italicized (?) :p everything except special chess words like blunder - for example, eg4 or whatever isn't in italics. I hope this makes the article more comprehensive. Classical Esther 07:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link terms in the first instance, e.g. "risky"

 Done Question: if you link it the first time, do you link it the second time, too? Classical Esther 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2nd para of Strategy also inconsistent capitalising of pieces.

 Done I just undid the capitalising in all of them. :) I hope it works well... Belinda 07:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, another mistake. In all the other sections, the piece names are all capitalised. I changed it into capitalising all of them. :) Sorry! Belinda 07:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are thought to be as openings " not good. You've just said "openings are openings" really.

 Done You're right, it does sound a little funny. :p Classical Esther 06:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the "Other pages" are already linked in the article e.g. FIDE so they don't need to be in that section.

 Done Took out the ones that were already in the article. Classical Esther 06:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1 has no publisher information.

 Done I put in the publisher, or, at least, what I think is the publisher. It says in the website that it was first made by David Howe, so that probably means that it was published. I mean, how can a website be published otherwise? And btw, Rambling Man, you're so good at finding out these mistakes! I respect you. :p Belinda 07:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not David Howe, Belinda, I think it was Helium.Inc. I changed it like that. You can usually find out the publisher if you go to the "Contact us" section, or at the bottom of the page. Classical Esther 07:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 4 has a spare.

 Done I think.. Because I took out all the spare spaces, I hope that's what you are meaning. Belinda 07:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs 11, 19 and 22 have no publisher information.

 Done I added publisher info in all of them. But I don't get about Ref 4 having a "spare".... Belinda 07:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a Fritz section, how about a chess engines section?[change source]

I would suggest that we make the Fritz section on chess engines instead, because there are many other important engines out there (Hiarcs, Crafty, Shredder, just to name a few), and add some of the issues associated with them, including controversies relating to allegations of cheating. Chess Life magazine had a front page article on it a couple of years ago, I wonder if I can still find that issue, but I might have thrown it away. Kansan (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article about board game, for computer game it would be better to create the independent article (by analogy with en:Computer chess) Zorg (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be useful to at least briefly mention some of the major impacts that computers have had on the game (certainly mentioning Deep Blue, etc.) in the main article, which wouldn't preclude us from including a larger article on computer chess. I don't really see a reason to limit the scope of the article strictly to over the board play. Kansan (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about a "computer chess" section, because "chess engines" is very specialized. Am I right understand this word? Do word "engine" imply a software engine or it can be used as synonym for machine? My English is not perfect for the present. Zorg (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right; "chess engine" is a specific term for a computer that can play chess. Kansan (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[change source]

Seems to be written pretty well (I've only read the first half or so), but I do have some concerns with the sourcing.

 Done I guess I'd better take those refs out. Too bad... Belinda 03:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #5 needs publisher info.
I'm not sure, but I don't think it has a publisher. I checked the main site, too, but it doesn't say the publisher information... And the "contact us" leads just to emailing the person. I think it's because that's an essay... :) And I checked the bottom of the page, but in vain; there isn't any publisher. Isn't it okay if you just write the writers' name in that case? Belinda 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an essay, might have to replace it with something more reliable? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I don't like lizards, most of all, and as you said, it is as definite blog. Belinda 04:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done finished! Belinda 04:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done took it out, endorse. Belinda 04:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done indeed not! It's too vain, also, calling itself an expert :P. Belinda 04:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • BBC News should be italicized and linked on its first occurrence.

 Done I linked the first BBC News, too. :) Hope it works. Oh, yes, and I'll italicize it. Belinda 03:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of them, am eager for more! :) Belinda 05:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PGA comments[change source]

Here are some things that need to be fixed in order for this article to reach GA.

  • The paragraph in the section "Set up" does not have any references. Refs need to be added

 Done added a ref there, too. Belinda 03:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same with the entire section "Movement"

 Done added the same ref as above, will try to find more. Belinda 04:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Third paragraph in the section "Castling" needs refs

 Done I added a ref, I hope it's a reliable one. :) -- Belinda 04:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "En passant" section needs refs

 Done added a direct reference, I hope I did the right thing. Belinda 03:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Check and checkmate" needs refs

 Done I added one. Belinda 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Other ways a game may end" probably needs more refs

 Done I don't have time for more fixing, but after study time is finished I'll be back to do more! Belinda 04:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second and fourth paragraphs in the section "Notation for recording moves" need refs

 Done added some. Cheers, Belinda 08:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • More refs are needed in the section "Opening"

 Done Added one Belinda 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs needed in "Middlegame" and "Endgame"

 Done I added one in "Middlegame", and will add one in "Endgame". Belinda 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove "History of chess" from the "Other pages" section, as it is already linked in the article

 Done by Macdonald-ross, I think, or some other. Belinda 11:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date formats are mixed in one of the refs. (E. g. number 21 has the dates "December 5, 2006" and "4 May 2008". They need to use the same format, so change it to either "5 December 2006" and "4 May 2008", or "December 5, 2006" and "May 4, 2008".)

 Done by Macdonald, good work. Belinda 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The {{cite web}} template should be used for the websites in the "Other websites" section.

 Done I citewebbed all of them. Belinda 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the first paragraph in the intro, "King" has the first letter capital, but in the second para of the intro, the "king" is in lower-case. Please be consistent throughout the article and either use "King" or "king" (which ever is correct).

 Done I changed all of the unconsistent "Kings" to lowercase, I mean, Either Way did. Belinda 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same goes for "Queen", "Bishop", "Knight", "Rook", and "Pawn", as the capitalization is inconsistent throughout the article
  • All the capitals on the bishop, knight, rook, and pawn, are un-done, and I'll check over them again just in case. The queen, too, is done by the quick and smooth work of Either Way. Belinda 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Megan|talkchanges 22:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have changed date formats to day month year, which is the preferred WP format.
2. I have changed all piece names to lower case except in the intro. Lower case initials for pieces and colours are normal in chess literature; upper case for White & Black if they refer to players, and upper case for names of openings.
3. Upper case for first introduction to pieces in the intro doesn't seem a problem to me, so I've left it at present. If others want complete consistency, they should go lower case.
4. Refs. For moves, repeat ref to laws of chess.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed all of them, with the help of dear Either Way and Macdonald-ross. Now I'd better get working on Pmlineditor's criticism! :) Yours Truly, Belinda 12:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing problems[change source]

  • Number 14 does not have a descriptive title. It also lacks publisher information.

 Done I'm not sure if I'm right, but I think it is correct. Belinda 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Simplify ref 12. It is quite complex.

 Done simplified, I hope I did it right. Belinda 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs 14, 20 and 23 have the same problem

 Done simplified Belinda 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see why ref 15 is reliable. As such, it needs a descriptive title and publisher information.

 Done removed ref Belinda 12:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All external links need to use {{cite web}}.

 Done as said below. Belinda 12:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pmlineditor  16:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the web refs you identify are not good enough; some of them are not needed, either, because the Laws are sufficient. I have cut some, and have added one crucial reference, new #11, which encompasses the interpretation or rules by a FIDE Arbiter and Organiser. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, Macdonald. Pmlineditor^ 08:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref number 13 is invalid...? Classical Esther 04:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's alright to me.. Belinda 12:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, I don't care what it looks to you. I want to know how it is reliable. "I think it is good" isn't a valid reason. Pmlineditor^ 12:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references (now as 21 and 23) are not reliable, in my opinion. One is from a local chess club's website. Nothing on their site strikes me as "we are reliable chess experts." Same goes for the second source. It's a personal website and nothing strikes me as a chess expert. Either way (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Megan said to do that above, I already did it. Belinda 12:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The formatting is completely broken. Extlink number 1 looks unnecessary. For no. 2, the en.chessfish part isn't necessary in the title. Also, its and not who is the publisher. Pmlineditor^ 12:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I citewebbed it with the automatic citeweb tool, so probably everything would be fixed. Belinda 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done almost all of the things you required, dear PM. Hope it's ready now! Belinda 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you didn't but I did it now. There are a lot of other problems with the article. Pmlineditor^ 12:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading[change source]

Further reading should be restrained to works of proven worth which might help beginners and improvers. There are literally thousands of books on chess in print, and what the reader needs here is more guidance than they would get on enWP. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list now consists of books useful for beginners and improvers. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; entries such as opening manuals or anything aimed at an intermediate level would take us too far afield. Kansan (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complex phrases or words[change source]

Per the GA candidacy, words that are a bit too complex,

Other things:

  •  Done I imagine shatranj should be in italics.
  •  Done Don't think you need to link eight or left.
  •  Done If you want to link files and ranks, do it the first time, not the second..
  •  Done That 45o looks like a superscript o rather than a superscript degree sign.
  •  Done "The symbol P for pawn is generally not used." then why mention it?
  •  Done "if a Q, R, Kt or B lands " write out in full please.
  •  Done "An example of checkmate." incomplete sentence, so no full stop.
  •  Done Bullet format changes in Middlegame section.
  •  Done Don't start section headings with "The..."

Email when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[change source]

Changes from now on need to be well justified: discuss if you are in doubt. Unjustified changes will be reverted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask:
  1. Why is it better to write "<...> two bishops, two rooks, and one king and queen" than "<...> two bishops, two rooks, one queen and one king"?
  2. Why is it bad to explain which language is used for the name "FIDE"?
  3. Why should one write about a section Laws of Chess without any explanation section of what?
  4. Why is it bad to write "(see below)" after a word "castling", being not simple and described just below? --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, changes to an established page need to be justified. It is not enough to think "I would have done it differently": there has to be a clear reason, and a change must be a clear improvement. Now, for many pages, changes might not be challenged. But we spent a great deal of time and work getting this page to "Good Article" status, and that means almost all our regular editors read it and gave opinions. You may not make changes without good reason. It is for you to give reasons. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I will propose changes and give reasons in sections below. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phrase giving list of all pieces[change source]

There is a phrase at the beginning of the article: "Each player starts with sixteen pieces: eight pawns, two knights, two bishops, two rooks, and one king and queen". In this phrase the word "and" is written twice, so that "king and queen" is referred to as one object. But there is no reason for uniting these two pieces. They are simply two different pieces. (And, as for me, even if they were a pair of husband and wife, such strange shape of a phrase would not be proper in Simple English.) So, I propose to rewrite the phrase as follows: "Each player starts with sixteen pieces: eight pawns, two knights, two bishops, two rooks, one queen, and one king." --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made the change. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for me, it would be better to write just as I proposed: to list the queen before the king. Then all pieces would be listed in order from less important ones to more important ones. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the section "Rules" some information about FIDE is written. I propose the following:

  1. If we explain why the World Chess Federation is called FIDE then it seems natural to write not only the words "Fédération Internationale des Échecs", but also that these words are French. Another good option is to do not explain it at all (a reader can read this in the article FIDE).
  2. There is such a sentence: "The rules are written and explained in the section Laws of Chess." It is necessary to write section of what, because it is not understandable.
  3. Probably, in the same sentence it is unnecessary to write two words "written" and "explained". What does it mean? Are there some additional explanations besides rules as they are? I suppose that in the section Laws of Chess the rules are simply written (or simply explained, which is the same).
  4. I propose to write "Now" at the beginning of the first sentence "The rules of chess are governed..." to do not create a hypothesis about too great role of FIDE in the history of chess. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. I am not going to make these changes, because I think the text is perfectly clear as it is. This page has been read by many people, and you are the only person who thinks the changes are necessary. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain me, please, from which detail of the article readers understand section of what is the section Laws of chess.
PS. I am simply the first person who decided to propose these changes. If facts like "This page has been read by many people, and you are the only person who..." were sufficient to do not change then it would be impossible to change anything in majority of Wikipedia articles. :) --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You need to move on. I said right at the beginning that the page was read in great detail by other editors when it was put forward as a good article. No-one had a problem with the text you are discussing. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I understand that the article is marked as good and thus changes should be firstly discussed and then made. I do just this way now.
  2. The frase "no-one had a problem..." is not proved. Maybe, somebody had a problem, but did not write about this.
  3. I wrote that I saw some problems. I explained why I think that certain changes should be made. And now nobody explains why my thoughts are wrong. In such situation, probably, the changes should be made. But you do not agree and do not explain why. The frase "no-one had a problem..." does not explain this, even if it is true; each problem is to be noticed for the first time someday, and sometimes even good articles should be changed.
  4. The most important of my propositions is the one about "the section Laws of chess". Maybe, I badly explained what I meant. So, once again. Whose is this section? That is, section of what? Section of which book? Maybe, it is a section of this article? No, here is no section with this title. Do you agree now that we should write the title of the book? If you think that a usual reader can easily understand which book is meant, then, please, explain me how. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained word "castling"[change source]

In the subsection "Capturing" of the section "Rules" the word castling is used. But this word is not good for Simple English and thus should be explained. It is just explained somewhat below. I propose to write "(see below)" after this word in this fragment. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, I have done this, since as for now nobody wrote that he or she disagreed. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Touch and move law[change source]

In the section "Touch and move law" it would be better to write also what happens when a hand leaves a piece (now it is only about when it touches it). --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph about pawn structure[change source]

In the section "Opening" the paragraph about pawn structure contains many links which are probably not useful. Maybe, we should explain there something about chess sense of notions mentioned. For example, the definition of doubled pawns is not obvious and the number "two" is not a good tool to guess this definition. :) --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The links will stay because they are part of this wiki's methods for dealing with words that are not "simple".
  2. If you want to expand on pawn structure, the right place to do it is under Middlegame#Elements of structure. You would need to put in diagrams illustrating the terms. I think that would be useful. The main Chess page could then carry links to the new material. Overall, details into sub-pages, not the main page. Remember, we are "Simple English"... Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have done it partially. I shortly explained in Middlegame#Elements of structure the meaning of the words "double pawns" and wrote the link. As for me, it is the most important part of all desirable explanations on this topic. Who wants can do more. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two general observations[change source]

I'd like to stop active work in the Simple English Wikipedia. Below are my observations about the article "Chess", which may be useful for other active editors:

  1. The section "Middlegame" is written somewhat emotionally in some fragments. As a result, the style of some phrases is not encyclopedic, some phrases are not precise (exaggerated), and there are some non-simple words.
  2. In the article there are no direct description of the start position of the pieces. It can be understood from a picture, but it would be better to describe it more explicitly. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed; words are not always the best form of communication. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captions in Section Movement.[change source]

There is a problem with the section movement. (The section can be found in the Contents as the number 2.2)

In this section are many diagrams showing the moves of the different pieces, like the moves of the king, rook, and bishop.

But, for some reason, the caption below the pictures shows {{{67}}}.

(I bolded some text because I couldn't think of a good sentence.)

(I don't know how to fix it.)

Strategy and tactics[change source]

This is one of the most viewed good/very good articles. However, strategy and tactics are not defined or mentioned, and they're among the most important parts of the game. Surely they can be explained at a simple level? Lights and freedom (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are many things touched on, but which are not specifically labelled. Obviously, people who actually want to become good at one of these games (bridge, chess, poker...) have to graduate to other media or get professional tuition. There's a lot available on the web. Like many players, I don't think in terms of strategy vs tactics. I think in terms of what I am trying to do, and what he is trying to do. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]