Former featured articleChess is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 10, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 7, 2002Refreshing brilliant proseKept
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
December 25, 2006Featured article reviewKept
January 8, 2008Featured article reviewKept
October 13, 2010Featured article reviewKept
January 21, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Origin of modern chess[edit]

An editor has modified the article as if Calvo's theory of the Spanish origin of modern chess was generally accepted. Is this warranted?


Comparable modifications have been made to History of Chess. Bruce leverett (tal) 17:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure. I know quite a lot about chess theory, and about chess history and literature from Lucena (1497) onwards... but as to the actual origins of the modern game, this is very obscure and specialized stuff with (as far as I understand it) much disagreement and speculation. From my lay point of view, the early literature (Lucena, Vicent and Scachs d'amor) appears to support a Spanish/Catalan origin for the modern queen and bishop moves. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the important modern moves are Spanish in origin. However the claim the user is making, that Chess is a Spanish game basically, is a stretch. He also removed references to the arabs bringing it to both Spain and Sicily, which I restored.Barjimoa (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a discussion in early 2021, during the most recent FA review of Chess, about what sort of emphasis should be given to the change to chess rules at the end of the 15th century, introducing the present powers of the queen and bishop. See Talk:Chess/Archive 10#"Years active" in the infobox. User:Ioannes Pragensis argued that the new "mad queen" rules made chess almost a different game; I argued the opposite. But afterwards, I reread the relevant section of Murray (pp. 776-777 and further), and I concluded that Pragensis was correct, and also was adhering better to what Murray, our principal source for our material about the origins, was saying: "The changes in the move of the queen and bishop completely altered the method of play at chess." (p. 777) "Thus analysis came into being, and the game was played in a more scientific way." (p. 777) "The whole course of the game was quickened by the introduction of more powerful forces." (p. 777) "The reform meant that the greater part of the problem material that had been collected with such care became obsolete and useless. Against this the problemist fought a long but a losing battle." (p. 778) "The rapidity with which the new game displaced the old game was phenomenal." (p. 779) "The twelve Openings are for us the most important features of the work [referring to the Göttingen manuscript], and their appearance at all is a sign of the great difference which the adoption of the new moves of Queen and Bishop made in the nature of chess. Henceforward analysis—the investigation into the effectiveness of different methods of commencing the game—becomes the ruling motive in the literature of chess." (p. 783)
So I thought the wording of the infobox was correct, if somewhat cumbersome ("years=c. 15th century to present (predecessors circa 900 years earlier)"). I do not like having the infobox refer to another article for a basic piece of information. Likewise the passage in the lead section starting with "The current form of the game emerged ... in the second half of the 15th century ..." was correct emphasis, although it should not be referring to "Spain and the rest of Southern Europe" with such certainty, since that level of certainty is not supported by sources. And the section "Predecessors" should not have been renamed to "Origins". Bruce leverett (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point and I have left a reference to the last major changes occuring in 15th century. Regarding the overall point my reasoning is that, given what the various sources states, the biggest mistake that can be made here is to pick a precise moment and place for the birthplace of Chess, it's an evolution over the centuries and throughout the countries of the world (hence picking a moment when the "predecessors" end and the "modern game" starts is problematic; whereas using nuanced words like "origins" or perhaps "roots" is more effective in conveying it was an evolution). The changes you highlighted in the move of the queen and the bishop are part of this evolution and are very important since they improved dramatically the mobility of the game, but a lot of Chess (the very basic concepts of the game, the board, the name and directional move of pieces, and much else) was already there and other stuff (pawn promotion to Queen, castling, en passant) had yet to be introduced or gain traction. Barjimoa (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FIDE Definition[edit]

Shouldn't we be using the actual FIDE acronym (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) rather than (International Chess Federation)?

Article status[edit]

Are there any plans/interest to bring this article back to FA? It seems on first glance to have a solid enough foundation, and has interested editors working on it. Might be near GA level already Horsesizedduck (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly I think the frantic efforts to bring it back to FA status according to modern wikipedia standards were a negative for the overall quality of the article. Most of the GA/FA reviewers don't know much about chess anyway. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The FA review that led to delisting was in early 2021. While one editor was attempting to address the initial concerns, another editor started a major rewrite (in his own words, "I tried to start a rewrite of the article to try to repeat the salvation 10 years ago"), which completely disrupted the process of addressing the original concerns. Another editor wrote, "That pretty much sums up my decades-long frustration with this article." A "solid enough foundation" and "interested editors working on it" are not sufficient to achieve anything, if editors influencing the decision have their own ancient agendas. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

photo of chess pieces at top of article[edit]

This is the photo that comes up when googling "chess". Why have such cheap-looking plastic pieces? 2A01:CB05:519:700:9980:9E93:F8E2:60EB (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have an alternative image on Wikimedia Commons you'd like to suggest instead? Edderiofer (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That set is prevalent at club level ("universally recognized" at least in USA), inexpensive yes, but that is good since chess is world-popular w/ key advantage that chess as hobby is low cost, therefore a better representative set for photo for WP article than photo of a $250-or-higher wood set. The plastic injection molds were thoughfully done in time-tested Staunton-inspired design. --IHTS (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current lede sentences from major two-player abstract strategy board game articles[edit]

--IHTS (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

".... is an abstract strategy board game" flows for me better than "is a strategy board game". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO it c/ "frighten" off readers (beginners) already suffering from miscomprehension that chess is for brainiacs. (So "strategy", a common word, which links to abstract strategy, and is also spelled out in the Infobox, is better.) --IHTS (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't think we need to underestimate our readers. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC) It's hard to explain, just intuition, based on the language/literature I've been exposed to. I'm pretty sure the description "abstract strategy board game" is more common than "strategy board game". After all even Monopoly has strategy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would never have guessed, but looking at abstract strategy game and strategy game, the former do not use dice, while the latter might, so we want to use "abstract strategy" here. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Strategy" was linking to 'abstract strategy game'. --IHTS (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO, beginner players come along to read the article, first thing they read is "Chess is an abstract strategy game", which equates in their heads to "Chess is an abstract game", totally feeding their previously held misconceptions that chess is only for brainiacs. Result: a turn-off. The unintended consequence is perpetuation of the misconception. --IHTS (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tend to agree with IHTS that calling chess "an abstract strategy board game" in the first sentence of the lede might be unnecessarily obtuse for an article that should be generally accessible. Clinically precise language is more appropriate in articles about specialist subjects in math and science, but this article is not about graduate-level mathematics or research science. I don't actually understand the complaint that was lodged about the old lede since describing chess first as a two-player board game seems perfectly reasonable and informative as an opening statement that will be expanded upon. I think the wiktionary chess entry does a better job introducing chess than saying it's an abstract strategy board game, although I recognize that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and article leads should not be written like dictionary entries. ("A board game for two players, each beginning with sixteen chess pieces moving according to fixed rules across a chessboard with the objective to checkmate the opposing king.") Quale (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that abstract strategy board game is obtuse—I had to look it up, after all. But I think we ought to capture the notion that chess doesn't use dice, and also that it doesn't use things like face-down cards; I think those concepts deserve to be in the lead paragraphs, and I don't think they are already there (or did I miss something). Perhaps not in the first sentence, though. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed lede sentence

Chess is a board game for two players, called White and Black, each starting with sixteen chess pieces in their color, with the objective to checkmate the opponent's king.

Or:

Chess is a board game for two players, called White and Black, each controlling an army of chess pieces in their color, with the objective to checkmate the opponent's king.

--IHTS (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --IHTS (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin of Chess-where does black pieces came from?[edit]

As controversial as it is a lot has been said regarding chess origin however ,I wanted to add that BLACK from history perspective specialy in Africa should also be part of the history given that there are historical documents and photos showing that games similar to chess exsisted.So i ask anywone with editing access to add or link SENTEREJ so that more african chess historians could study further.Where does the concept Black came from?🙏🇪🇹 Meknoah (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The convention that White moves first does not have its origins in racism. Originally either White or Black could move first. It's because according to superstitions of the time the black pieces were considered more lucky or desirable, so in compensation the white pieces were allowed to move first. Over time the "white moves first" convention evolved and became one of the rules (relatively recently, in the 19th century). The opposite happened in checkers. We welcome Ethiopian or any other cultural perspectives on chess. Maybe you have some ideas for the Senterej article? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In shogi and go, of course, Black moves first. (Where shogi pieces are undifferentiated in color; black go stones being made of slate.) --IHTS (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources for Origins[edit]

Recent changes have restored citations of Leibs and of Estes and Robinson to the discussion of the origins of chess, in Chess, History of Chess, and Chaturanga. These two books are not reliable secondary sources on questions about the origins of chess. We evaluated them in January 2021, as well as some other sources, and here is the assessment (copied from Talk:Chess/Archive 10#"Years active" in the infobox):

I have found copies of (the cited pages of) Leibs, Estes & Robinson, Murray, and Bird online. Here is my assessment -- other editors are welcome to correct me:
  • Murray sums up the origin of chess, 7th century, "NW India", on pages 26 and 27, but there are some later pages with more details. Note that when he was writing, what is now Pakistan was still part of India. So does "NW India" mean modern-day Pakistan? Judging from later pages, in which he mentions Sri Harsha of Kannauj, I think he had in mind more the "Indian" part of north India.
  • Estes & Robinson has only 27 pages, and nothing about chess. Even if there is a page 34 and it's about chess, this doesn't look like a reliable source on chess history.
  • Bird is quite a gathering of historical sources, but page 63 is not relevant to the history of chess. I did not see another page in which Bird tried to give a conclusive summary of the early history. But his claim that some ancient Roman texts mentioned "Chess" suggests to me that his criteria of what constitutes "chess" are not very strict.
  • Leibs summarizes the pre-medieval history briefly and gives no sources. His "6th century" contradicts Murray, which is interesting, but I don't see anything to substantiate that.
Bruce leverett (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added later:
  • "Estes & Robinson" was written by Robinson, illustrated by Estes. I found page 34 by the usual devious trickery with Google Books, but this is not a useful reference, nor should it be in our bibliography. It is a book full of art projects. It is not a secondary source for chess history. On page 34 it mentions that chess came from India, and that's all. I have removed that citation, and removed that bibliography entry.
  • I have replaced the URL for Murray with the URL for the Google Books version, which has all the pages.
  • Bird has a summary of the earliest origins of chess that does not contradict Murray's, but I do not have a version of Bird that has authentic page numbers, so I will assume that the page number of 63 is correct. As a reference, Bird is more or less superseded by Murray, but it's fun to look through Bird, so I do not have any problem with keeping that citation.
  • Murray's dating of chess to the 7th century was authoritative when he published it (1913). It is conceivable that Leibs knows of some source, found since 1913, which would push the date back to the 6th century; but as I said above, I don't see any substantiation of that.
  • The Gupta empire was kaput by 543 CE. So it isn't safe to claim that chess originated under that empire.
Bruce leverett (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the book 'Chess History and Reminiscences' bird clearly mentions chess has reached persia in the 1st half of 6th century only, on page 228.
  • Liebs mentions it in 6th century as well.
  • The gupta empire was not done in 543 CE. If you look at the map they started losing land from 510 to 520's CE but after that did a reconquest after that . They completely started falling apart only after 550 CE.
  • Vasuvadatta who gives the earliest reference to the board game has been recently been dated to 5th century, a courtier of two gupta kings.
Qaayush529 (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not remember how I arrived at the date of 543 CE. Looking at Gupta Empire, I would agree with you that 550 CE is a better date.
Murray (p. 51) mentions Vasuvadatta, and allows that the reference to the board game in it is "quite satisfactory". I see from Vasavadatta that the date associated with that tale has been debated:

He is generally taken to have written the work in the second quarter of the seventh century.[1] However, scholar Maan Singh has stated that he was a courtier of the Gupta emperors Kumaragupta I (414-455) and Skandagupta (455-467), dating him between 385 and 465 AD.[2]

Bruce leverett (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
heyBruce leverett (talk) . How are you going to explain bird and leibs references . They explicitly mentione it has reached in persia by 1st half of 6th century. That means it was already developed in northen indian in the previous centuries ruled by the gupta emperors. Vasuvadatta is also dated to 5th century by the new scholars thanks to some new archealogical discovery .
Isn't Murray reference quite old in this regard when we have comparitively little information and most excavations were still made out.
I would like to know your response. In my opinion it would be better if we add all the references Summerkillsme (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hey Bruce leverett (talk) . Here another image which pretty much proves chess was already present in persia in 1st half of 6th century.
khosrow representative playing chess
One more thing is most likely this book was not excavated during Murray time so he had no idea of this reference of chess.
but the other authors does.
Its also easy to assume from this chess was indeed well developed and played in northen india in 5th and 6th century. Summerkillsme (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be reverting the recent changes to those three articles that re-introduced the citations of Leibs and of Estes and Robinson. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. One small point—Bird's view of chess history is highly inaccurate and I don't think it should be used as a source for the origins of chess. Even if he wasn't wrong on some specific point he was wrong about a lot and I would never point anyone to Bird with the expectation that it's accurate. Don't use Bird. Quale (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fivefold repetition rule[edit]

Why is it named fivefold and all the links send you to threefold? Am I missing something or should it be changed to threefold? MiniFlux (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fivefold repetition is closely related to, but handled differently from, threefold repetition. There is a brief section of the article on threefold where we define and discuss fivefold. It would be more helpful if the links for fivefold sent you to that section, rather than just the beginning of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2023[edit]

 please, let me edit. I promise i will behave
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop undoing the edit. That’s just not on[edit]

“Always” is not true at all. There are absolutely people who refer to it as red/white when the set is red and white. I have heard it myself from other people when playing with these boards. None of you have managed to provide a genuine justification for why “always” is correct. This is because it isn’t correct. While I accept that 99% of the time they’ll say red/black, the fact that any outliers exist proves it should say mostly or usually rather than every single time. I’m fed up of you reverting the edit and saying “yes it is always actually because so there” when there are obvious exceptions. Need an example? Alice in Wonderland (2010) red and white board, referred to as red/white. Based on Lewis Carroll’s Alice through the looking glass, same matter. While there are more examples, they aren’t relevant, since ANY example of an outlier disproves the “always” case. Don’t be silly now please. CitrusSoEpic (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lewis Carroll wrote (among other things) fantasy fiction, not chess books. There is not a single chess book that will refer to the pieces as anything other than black and white. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An example of an outlier doesn’t disprove “always”. If I say that driving is always in the right lane in the United States, the existence of someone driving in the left lane doesn’t disprove what I said. Bruce leverett (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think replacing
While the sets might not be literally white and black (...), they are always referred to as "white" and "black".
with
While the sets might not be literally white and black (...), they are referred to as "white" and "black".
(i.e., deleting "always") would be a marginal improvement. Strictly speaking, the meaning would be the same (so it might not entirely satisfy user:CitrusSoEpic), but it would be briefer and (imho - as a non-native speaker) slightly more elegant. Nø (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with Nø - I'm fine with just removing the qualifier entirely ("always" "usually" "traditionally" or whatever) - calling the sides "white" and "black" is just a basic statement of fact. Antandrus (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I normally enjoy removing superfluous words. But “always” made a strong impression on User:CitrusSoEpic, so I have to assume that it is serving a purpose there. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also favor simply removing "always". It doesn't really serve any essential purpose and it invites needless argument. Quale (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:MaxBrowne2 has improved the text while neatly circumventing the above arguments. But this is reminding me of two related issues. First is that with actual chess sets, color is not always crucial, e.g. crusaders vs. Saracens. Second is that we perhaps should make it clearer that any discussion of chess set appearance and/or aesthetics is not, by definition, a discussion of chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images[edit]

A few image issues in this article. The MOS asks to avoid image sandwiching—WP:SANDWICH—and at the moment the Setup section (yes one is not an image, but it creates the same issue of squeezed text) includes such an issue, as does the "Post-World War II era" section.

Re this reversion, the Public chess tables in Paris currently appears rather irrelevantly in the Rules section. How it properly supports the line "chess is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide" (claimed in the reversion's edit summary) I have no idea, as said line appears four paragraphs earlier, i.e. no where near it. I suggest removing it.

Additionally, there are numerous section which would benefit from media of some kind, i.e. much of Theory and the later history section. Aza24 (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately I am traveling and cannot verify your statement that the illustration lands in a bad place, nor fix it, until I can work on something larger than a mobile phone. But I like the photo and will try to place it appropriately. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also I recall thinking that the article could use some more illustrations, but that’s another thing I can’t work on while traveling. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not understanding how or why you're seeing the Paris chess tables image in the Rules sec; markup puts it immediately after the Infobox in the lead, which is what I see on either a pc or using the mobile view sidebar. --IHTS (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am on a laptop with vector 2022. The infobox pushes the table images into the rules section as the TOC is not there anymore to separate it. As such, it appears to be relevant to the rules section, when it is presumably not. I don't really see anywhere else it could be put, so deletion seems like the logical conclusion. If there was a section on amateur play around the world, i.e. in cafes, parks and other spaces, it would be fitting there. Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't/couldn't know anything re the Vector stuff. Have taken your idea literally and added a new sec (open to modification and/or expansion). The "millions of people worldwide" thing in the lead shouldn't be w/o some sort of body support anyway; plus, there's no doubt more people who play than those who play in organized events, and the article is/was focused nearly or exclusively on rated play.  Done --IHTS (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Post-World War II era" sec:  Done --IHTS (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Setup sec:  Done --IHTS (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories