Talk:Rules of chess
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is in the list of Selected articles that are shown on the Portal:Chess. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-07-15. The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Alternate moves
when chess books discuss alternate moves of competition games, did the players really try out all the variations during competition?
- During competition it is fobidden to move pieces for analysing the game. So players do this only in their mind, not really moving the pieces on the board. Andreas Kaufmann 08:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- In fact these sequences are generally written by the authors of the chess books, without asking the players what they were thinking at all. DanielCristofani 12:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
when trading is used
[edit] White's advantage
- The article states "this gives white an advantage of approximately 5% in tournament play". This statistic needs to be clarified, because it could mean a score of 0.55 to 0.45 on average, or a score of 0.525 to 0.475 on average. The latter is what a 5% advantage would mean to me, but IIRC, the former is actually the true advantage of playing white. --Fritzlein 19:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- It is about 55% to 45%. Using onmy the 1. e4 and 1. d4 games at chess games explorer] I get 54.9% score for white. Bubba73 (talk), 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Could someone explain to a casual player what exactly is meant by a "score of 55%" (in terms of win/lose/draw)? --Slashme 05:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- Let's say your probability to win, draw, and lose are W, D, and L respectively. By definition W + D + L = 1. Your expected score is then W + D/2. The interesting thing, if I recall correctly, is that White's expected score is about 0.55 when two beginners of equal ability play, and also about 0.55 when two grandmasters of equal ability play. For the beginners you might have W=55%, D=0%, and L=45%, whereas for the grandmasters you might have W=30%, D=50%, L=20%, but in either case the expected score (W + D/2) for white is 0.55.
- By my way of figuring, since W - L = 10% at all levels, then we should say White wins 10% more than Black, or else we should explain what we mean by an expected score of 0.55. --Fritzlein 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I get it now. Thanks. I have modified the article in a way that I understand. Hope that works for the other novices as well ;-) --Slashme 13:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 50 Move Rule
If fifty moves have been played by each player without a piece being taken or a pawn moved (in tournament play, some situations are extended to one hundred moves).
I´m quite confident that this was abandond a few years ago. --Vulture
- which was abandoned, the fifty move rule, or the hundred move rule? If you're confident, why not amend the text to say that X rule applied for a (insert approximate period of time), but the rule was changed to Y in (approximate time frame). --Wesley
- See the official rules linked from the article, specifically rule 5.2e. I don't know that there ever was a hundred move rule; the person claiming this should cite a source. What there used to be was a provision that allowed an extension where it could be demonstrated that a forced mate would take longer. This is theoretically possible with some minor piece endings, but those who find themselves in such a situation during a game are unlikely to have the skill needed to demonstrate a forced mate. The practical application of the rule comes in games involving inexperienced players who have great difficulty concluding a game, and even then they have great difficulty in maintaining the score sheet which would prove that 50 moves have passed. In my experience as arbiter in children's tournaments, I can count on someone raising the rule at least once in every tournament in a situation where it is not applicable at all. Eclecticology
Back when I was an active USCF player, there was an addendum to the 50-move rule published by the USCF explicitly laying out one specific set of conditions under which 100 moves would be allowed: it was for certain Knight-vs-Pawn endings, laid out in great detail in the addendum. I still have it in my paper copy of the rulebook. If Vaulture says it was abandoned, and you can't find it in the present rules, I have no doubt that it was in fact abandoned. I was not able to find any information about exactly when that happened, or why. --Lee Daniel Crocker
Here is my understanding: The original theory behind the fifty-move rule was that pawnless endgames (e.g. KBN vs K) take less than fifty moves to win if you know what you are doing. If you don't know what you are doing, you don't get to prolong the game indefinitely just because you know there is a win there somewhere.
When computers started to do retrograde analysis, they discovered pawnless situations where the distance to mate was greater than fifty moves, and situations involving pawns where the stronger side had a win, but optimal play from both sides went more than fifty moves without a pawn advance. Therefore the rules were changed to give the stronger side a chance to convert those endgames by allowing one hundred moves in some situations.
The rapid proliferation of endgame tablebases uncovered more and more "exceptions" to the fifty-move rule, and even some cases where more than one hundred moves were necessary to convert. (Apparently 243 moves to conversion (262 to mate) is the current record. See [1].) Tournament organizers saw the complexity of the draw rules spinning out of control, and perhaps even requiring a computer to say whether someone was eligible to claim a draw or not. In face of looming rule insanity, the original fifty-move rule was restored. In theoretical cases where there is a win on the board that takes more than fifty moves to convert, it's just too bad for the stronger side.
- At one time the 50 move rule was extended to 100 moves for certain endgames, but as more and more such endgames weere found, the rule (wisely) went back to 50 moves. Not all of them were pawnless. One was 2N vs P, which can require up to 66 moves with best play. This and two others were listed in FIDE rules around 1960. The other two were: K+R+B vs K+R and K+R+RP on its original square vs K+P blocking the other pawn + B on opposite color as opponent's pawn. Bubba73 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 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
[edit] Separate from [chess]
Is there a particular reason why this is separated from the Chess article? -- Zoe
- The chess article would be too long, and maybe not provide as good overview as it does now. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 10:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Maybe it should be "Official Rules of Chess"? –Floorsheim 08:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- We would run into problems like 'official according to whom?' etc. Let's stay adaptive. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 10:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I thought there was some sort of international convention. Maybe we could reference that. My concern is that the rules listed seem too constrictive. Of the many times I've played chess, for example, I've never played it in such a way that if you touch a piece you have to move it. It seems as though if we don't reference an international convention, we'll have to go into detail about variations on the rules. –Floorsheim 00:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Insufficient material
The bracketed list of material sufficient to checkmate in the Timing section seems flawed to me. It is perfectly possible to checkmate with only two Knights against a hasted defence, so it shouldn't be an draw if the defender runs out of time, should it? (And it is of course also possible to checkmate with only one Knight if the defender has a few ill-placed pieces in the King's way...) -- Jao 15:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- With King + 2 knights versus a king, checkmate cannot be forced. You can have a position like White: Kh6, Ne4, Nf4, Black: Kg8. Now white moves Nf6+. Blank has to move Kh8 to get mated, whereas either Kf7 or Kf8 avoids the mate in one. With the other situation, there probably isn't a forced mate. Bubba73 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- That section wasn't quite right - it is really whether or not checmate is possble, not the material. Insufficient material is one way that checkmate is impossible. Bubba73 (talk), 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Castling
In contrast to FIDE, the USCF no longer requires the king to be touched first in castling. Touching the rook first is OK if the player "intends to castle". I can't get them to clarify how you know that a person "intends to castle" if, say, he moves his rook and then reaches for the king, but doesn't touch it and draws his hand away. Is that "intent to castle"? They also won't clarify what happens if the player moves the rook and doesn't immediately move the king. They won't say if he is committed to a rook move, commited to castling, or what. They also don't say what happens if the player moves the rook then the other player moves or starts to move and then the first player says that he was intending to castle. Bubba73 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've got some more information on this. The USCF rules still state that the king is to be touched before the rook, or they can both be touched at the same time. What has changed in the USCF rule is that the normal rule was that if the rook was touched first, a rook move had to me made instead of castling. Now the player can castle after touching the rook, but is subject to a warning the first time. After that time, the penalty is up to the director. (If you move the king two squares and take your hand off it, you are committed to castling, if it is legal). Bubba73 (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Random notes on recent tweaks.
-I don't think the "convenient practice" is common enough or useful enough to include.
-"white wins 10% more games" would mean that white wins 110% as many games as black wins. Using the numbers from "chess games explorer" with white starting with e4 or d4, I get white winning 136% as many games as black wins, or better than 4 to 3. Besides, this is "original research", and besides that it probably doesn't belong in an article about rules anyway.
-I don't think we want to suggest that there's consensus about what happens in chess with perfect play. It's really not known and it may well never be.
-I thought it worth explaining castling and en passant in this article. I tried to be brief. Took out some of the tournament-related detail about castling though--I think it's a bit much. Obviously if people disagree they can put it back.
-Added resignation, which was missing.
DanielCristofani 14:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something (and I am new to contributing to Wikipedia), but what was the purpose of 70.172.215.105's change to the Draws section adding the note about Kings giving check to each other? I suppose some variant might make that reasonable, but it seems bogus to me.
JTamplin 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it doesn't make sense, I don't know why it was added, and I've just reverted it. DanielCristofani 03:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Colours
The actual colors of chess sets are usually white and black, cream and brown, red and black, or buff and green; but the pieces and squares are always referred to as "white" and "black". -- Now I've seen white and red or cream and red, but never black and red. Is this an error, or just me? Also, it is worth mentioning that at one time the two sides could be referred to as White and Red (as they are in Through the Looking-Glass)? 213.249.135.36 18:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is an error, possibly confusing colors of the pieces with colors of the board. There will never be a black and red set unless it is a really cheap toy. Similarly, boards are commonly buff and green, but I've never seen a green set. You can change that, or I will. Bubba73 (talk), 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is it just me or is the starting position wrong?
Maybe it's the fact that it's 5:30am, but the starting position for chess looks incorrect to me. As the old adage states (mentioned in this article), queen on colour and white on right -- of course this does not jive with the layout displayed which clearly has the queens on the opposite colour (as well as the kings). I'm almost positive this is wrong and I'm wondering why it's gone unnoticed... maybe lack of sleep is making me miss something. Professor Ninja 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, it was the sleep talking. I got the representations of the king and queen backwards. No wonder it didn't look right to me. Professor Ninja 10:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article title
The Rules of chess were redesignated the Laws of chess quite some time ago. May I have views, please, on retitling the article accordingly. BlueValour 00:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your request for opinions deserves a response, even if an extremely belated one. I'm neutral, and would be satisfied to have the article at either title. If nothing else we should certainly create a redirect from Laws of chess. I would do it now, but it would make the page move harder, should we choose to do it. Quale 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NOT
Wikipedia is not a guide or instruction manual. This is essentially all this article is.--Crossmr 15:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it might have been viewed as that when you listed it for deletion, but it isn't anymore....193.128.87.36 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DN
The article says "To describe moves and locations on the board, either algebraic chess notation or the almost obsolete descriptive chess notation is used." In my mind, DN is obsolete, and almost extinct. should that be changed? Bubba73 (talk), 01:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would concur with (completely) "obsolete", but I note that in my club, there are three regulars (out of about forty) who still use it. So I would hesitate to call it extinct. Note, "almost obsolete" seems to smack of the same imprecision that "very unique" has. What does "almost" accomplish? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "advanced rules" and "controversy" sections
Do the "advanced rules" and "controversy" sections still need to be here? I think they are a direct copy from fifty move rule, and that article is linked in the main body (under "Draws") and also in the list of articles about specific rules near the end. Bubba73 (talk), 19:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't like duplication, so I would say merge anything to the relevant subpages (and as you say, probably nothing to merge) and remove them. Quale 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry that was my fault. I was annoyed at the deletion argument and added those sections as cut-and-pastes to show that this page could be more than an instruction manual. But they don't really belong here, which is why they were seperate articles in the first place. Chop them out, reword them, merge them, whatever you want really. They were only there to appease the deletion argument 193.128.87.36 12:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] table of diagrams at Movement section
I recently tried to shrink the table of six diagrams illustrating piece movements. My desire was to allow more space on the left side of the page for the text to wrap through--the gap was quite narrow. While I was able to shorten the captions without losing much, the table still has a lot of dead space. It appears that the diagram template itself inserts a good deal of space around itself although reading its code I cannot demonstrate that to myself. Neither can I make alignment changes which allows for more horizontal space (although I did vertically top-justify the diagrams, which looks better).
Now I like the idea of having the six illustrations all together. But its impact on the text flow is something I am not satisfied with. I am not a table markup or html formatting guru and would like to ask for some feedback as to whether there is an easy way to lay out the diagrams in a lot less horizontal space. We could even revisit putting all six in one table, although to me that seems like a Plan B.
Oh, and feel free to revert my table edit; the only tangible improvement was the vertical justification which can easily be specifically readded. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recent edit
Concerning the recent edit and revert about moving the king and then touching the the rook - the revert (edit comment "Touching a rook AFTER making the king part of a castling is immaterial, as the corresponding rook move MUST be made anyway") is correct. FIDE rule 4.6 and USCF rule 9C state that after the king has been released on a square two squares over, the player is committed to castling that way, if it is legal. Bubba73 (talk), 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] reworded goal in intro
A heads up: I tried to improve the wording of the goal in the intro. By using the word "inevitable" I hoped to avoid the necessity of explaining that the king doesn't actually get captured (I moved that into the body). I also trimmed out reference to protecting one's own king from this; I felt the symmetry of the game made this idea clear enough so that the intro would read better if omitted. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Piece" distinction
In the Setup section, there is a short paragraph on the usage of the term "piece", as well as "(chess)man". No qualms with the content (although I don't usually prefer the imperative voice "Note that..." in a WP article), but I think there is some ambiguity that needs addressing. Note that (sorry) the chart immediately above that paragraph enumerates the players' pieces, yet includes pawns in this enumeration, in apparent contradiction to the usage described for the term piece!
I think there are two usages of piece being confounded here. First is the physical entity that comes in the box when you buy a chess set, of which there are 32, usually wood, etc., etc. The other refers to the abstract entity which forms part of the players' assets of the game, which move in various ways, can capture, etc., etc. I think the enumeration of the set uses the first meaning, and the terminology usage describes the second.
If so, it would help to clarify this in the article. I am not going to dive in now, but may very well later if no one does so first. Please reply with any feedback, esp. if anyone thinks I am misunderstanding the issues here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that
should be removed because it is a bit of terminology that really has nothing to do with the rules, which is the topic of this article. I think it could be confusing to have it there. Every other use of "piece" in the article (and there are many) use it in the sense of including pawns. Bubba73 (talk), 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Note that in chess terminology, the pawn is often not called a 'piece'; with this usage, it would be said that each player has eight pieces and eight pawns. The terms 'man' or 'chessman' may be used to mean a piece or pawn.
-
-
- I removed
because it doesn't have anything to do with the rules. It might go in some other article. Bubba73 (talk), 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Chess tables (either of wood or stone) are sometimes made with a chess board designed into the surface. Sometimes human chess boards are drawn on the floor or ground. Many travel boards fold into a box that the pieces fit into and some of them use magnets to hold the pieces in place.
- I removed
-
[edit] Noise
I can't see anything in this article about noise. No mention of mobile phones ringing etc see Ruslan Ponomariov. Something to add. ChessCreator (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is illegal to distract the opponent, etc. That isn't mentioned in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 15:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
