Talk:Chess

FIDE Definition

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

Bullet Chess

Bullet Chess is a popular chess game in where the opponent only has 3 to 1 minutes to finish Early Learner (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Bullet chess is already mentioned in the "Time control" subsection of the "Rules" section. Kaotao (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Colors of chessboards

The two citations just added for the text about colors of chessboards are not good. The source cited for vinyl chessboards is an article about how to make a wooden chessboard. The source cited for wooden chessboards is the sales website for chesshouse.com; WP:LINKSPAM.

I don't think that we are going to find better sources. Instead, we should just remove the sentence about colors. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I have "The Modern Chess Primer" by Rev. E. E. Cunnington (1899), which says chessboards should by preference have white and brown squares. Is this citeable? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Capablanca wrote in A Primer of Chess (1935), "It is advisable to play on a board with buff and black squares or buff and green squares." But actually I don't know if we need to say more about the board in this article than light and dark squares. There's more at chessboard which seemed accurate to me in a very quick scan but which is mostly uncited. Quale (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Abstract Strategy game classification

Would it not be classified as a role-playing game due to the usage of specific characters? PaCa11 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't think so, as role-playing games are usually defined by the players' ability to create/customize their own charcters and sort of do what they want within the game, whereas in chess there are very specifc rules and gols for what you are expected to do. Also, role-playing games tend to have an unlmited or very high player limit. Hi, I'm Max!|Talk to me here.|See what I've done here. 06:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2025

Pawns can move backwards to kill once. 124.148.182.79 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but this is just trolling. Don't waste any time on this sort of nonsense. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Gallery of pictures of chess in public spaces

In a recently added comment, an editor asks, "Do we really need this many pictures?" This seems like a legitimate question to me. The reader surely does not need more than one or two pictures of chess in public spaces. Would anyone like to speak up in favor of their favorite pictures? Bruce leverett (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett What utility would there be in having fewer pictures? Most probably don't care, but I think there are many more readers who would prefer the current gallery than ones who would prefer a smaller one, since the current gallery isn't unscrollable enough to be obtrusive. Kaotao (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Some number of photos would clearly be too many. This gallery continues to grow and my opinion is that that is unnecessary unless added photos bring something new and important not found in the existing examples. Maybe the current gallery currently isn't too large if all the photos are good, but let's see. I think every photo should show a game of chess being played, so I want to clearly see both players and the chess board and pieces. Bonus if the photo gives some sense of the setting or place or shows the worldwide diversity of chess players.

1. Washington Square Park - board not really visible, too far away from the action, peripheral field doesn't show anything interesting and gives no sense of the location. Even though this the iconic location for public chess in the US the photo doesn't really show anything interesting about it - Strike
2. Jardin du Luxemborg - too far away from the action (just looks like men sitting at tables) - Strike
3. Kutaisi - good view of players and boards, framing shows the location, kibitzers visible - Keep
4. Mexico City - unfortunate cropping shows only one player, I want to show that girls play chess but this is a regretful - Strike
5. Kilifi - has all the stuff I want - Keep
6. Cathedral Square, Christchurch - giant board and pieces add to interest - Keep
7. Santiago de Cuba - this is good - Keep
8. Széchenyi baths - unique setting - Keep
9. Salatiga, Indonesia - beautiful chess set and shows participation by a girl, but the angle is too low to show the pieces very well and no opponent is visible so it is a regretful - Strike
10. Lund - good with a nice analog chess clock - Keep

Quale (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I like this section, adds a bit of fun and informality to the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Quale I agree that 1, 2 and 4 are relatively shoddy, but I don't think 10 images is too many. It'd be better to replace them than to just remove them. I think the pieces in 9 are visible enough, and the player POV is a nice addition to the gallery. Kaotao (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I am not persuaded, either that we need more than a couple of pictures, or that we can arrive at good criteria for accepting/rejecting new pictures. Since I have been playing chess for decades, all these pictures look cute to me, but putting myself in the seat of a reader almost completely unacquainted with chess, I would very likely skip over them entirely. This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article, it looks like a shrine.

Other game articles, such as Shogi and Xiangqi, have a couple of photos of public scenes, not enough to warrant gathering into a gallery. Go (game) and Backgammon don't have any at all. I could swear that I had seen photos of people playing backgammon or variants in public somewhere on Wikipedia, but I couldn't find them.

As an American, I would have liked to show off a photo of actual hustling at Washington Square Park, but we ain't got that, so too bad. It is also nice to show off "giant" boards and pieces. The photo from Christchurch is a reasonable choice, although even larger boards and pieces might be out there. I have found that even non-chessplayers have heard of Hungarians playing chess in the pool or the baths, so the photo from Hungary is a reasonable choice. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing WP:NOTGALLERY and MOS:IMAGEREL, I am almost inclined to remove the entire section. None of these images have any encyclopedic significance. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I've no opinion on the matter. The sec was created for the purpose ([1] and [2]) of getting a misc photo out of the lede and better placed, and to provide some body jusfication for lede summary assertion re popularity w/ millions world-wide. (So if rmv'd, need to provide alternative lede summary justification.) --IHTS (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Youngest world champion

The claim that Gukesh was the youngest WC ever is arguable. Ponomariov was a few months younger. There has been dispute over the legitimacy of world championships, but Ponomariov's actual chess achievement was about equal to Gukesh's; Ponomariov didn't have to get past Karpov or Kasparov, Gukesh didn't have to get past Carlsen. We could take a position on this, but it doesn't seem worth doing in this introductory article. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

ok I'll remove. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Chess and refugee children

This is potentially a notable topic which has received coverage in reliable sources. The summary reversion was unjustified in my opinion. However, it's not altogether clear how this content could be incorporated into the article without giving undue prominence. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I admit, I would have done the reversion myself, but another editor got there first. The article should concentrate on things that the chess community already knows about. Heartwarming stories about chess clubs in refugee camps, or in inner-city schools, or homeless immigrant children who become chess masters, are fun, but then there's WP:NOTNEWS. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Western or International

@Oceanbed347: There were brief discussions of "Western", "International", "Modern", and "European" on this talk page, now at Talk:Chess/Archive 11#western chess, international chess, modern chess and Talk:Chess/Archive 11#European Chess. This was from 21 October 2021. I do not have anything to add to those discussions, but there may have been earlier discussions as well. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bruce leverett!,

Thank you for providing me with those links, I appreciate it.

I believe that calling the game a "Western game" would be unfair as it would ignore the contributions made by other cultures (persian/arab), including the fact that Chess originated in India. International chess on the other hand would be a more appropriate term as it is inclusive and accurately reflects the games long and complex history without giving the ownership of the game to one group of people.

Furthermore the term western chess is one which is almost never used. I honestly was unaware of this term until I came across it on Wiki. No one has ever asked me whether I would like to play a game of "western" chess. The game is just chess.

International chess on the other hand is a term which is frequently used, especially at the competitive level.

Since what is written at the top is only there to help differentiate the Chess page from other pages it would be better to use international chess, as it is much more commonly used and more accurately encapsulates the history of the game. The term western chess is already mentioned(along with international chess) under synonyms. I see no need why this term which is rarely used should be given preference over international chess.

I would love to hear your opinion,

If you know of any other editors could you please invite them to this discussion.

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347 I don't think Western chess Western is unfair any more than calling Japanese curry Japanese is—they're both rooted elsewhere, but were given definite form in the place whose name they bear. In terms of prominence, I've heard both, but neither of us can decide without evidence which is more common. I personally think "Western chess" and especially "Western board game" make more sense. Kaotao (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

"International chess" is the literal translation of the Chinese term for chess ("international xiangqi"), as opposed to just plain old xiangqi. From the Chinese point of view, "xiangqi" is the normal game, and "international xiangqi" is the variant. "International xiangqi" was little known in China until the late 20th century, they only started competing in Olympiads in 1978 (and defeated several Western GMs during the event, finshing 20th). Outside of China, if you just call it "chess", everybody knows what game you mean. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kaotao and MaxBrowne2!,

I have absolutely no issue with calling the modern form of the game Western chess, it is only when the entire page on Chess is introduced as a western board game. This overly simplifies the game's history and ignores contributions made by other cultures.

I think it would be better to introduce the game as a strategy board game and mention in the lede that chess in its current form is know as western chess.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of the hatnote is to help people who got to this article while reading or hearing about something else. We don't have a loftier purpose, such as teaching new vocabulary, which we do a lot of in the rest of the article.

I would dispute that "Western chess" is "almost never used". The earlier discussion (which I linked to above) cites this article, which repeatedly uses "Western chess" to distinguish chess from xiangqi. It also cites aomething where Kramnik uses "International chess" for a similar purpose (distinguishing chess from makruk), so when I was participating in that discussion, I thought that either "Western" or "international" could plausibly suit our purpose in this hatnote.

Of course, other than trying to distinguish chess from some variant or other, no one ever says "Western" or "international" chess, so in that sense, they are "almost never used". Bruce leverett (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The first time I ever heard the term "international chess" was from a Chinese workmate. Presumably "chess" for him means xiangqi. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347 "Strategy board game" would do little to clarify that the scope of the article does not include other chess-like games, such as xiangqi, which is the purpose of the disclaimer. "Western" may be better than "international" in this regard, since "international" could possibly be interpreted to include all games referred to as chess by people not familiar with the term international chess. Xiangqi is also thought to be descended from chaturanga, but it is ubiquitously referred to as Chinese, because its unique character—what makes it xiangqi—was developed in China. Thus, when comparing it to the chaturanga variant (or possibly xiangqi variant according to the article) that arose from the West, some call it "Chinese chess", even though it has other cultures in its roots. The same logic can be applied here. I don't think "western board game" is necessarily the best way of specifying what we mean by chess, but I think it's a valid one. Kaotao (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kaotao and Bruce!

All I am suggesting is that a more neutral and inclusive term like International chess, which has already been mentioned under synonyms next to western chess be used in the hatnote, instead of "a western board game". The reason for this is that "Chess" is a general page just like the one on "Curry". If you look up curry, it says that it is about a dish with spices, and under curry you have many different curries like Japanese curry. This applies to chess as well. The different variants of chess like Xiangqi and others all have their own page, just like Japanese curry. But there is only one page for chess just like for curry. To call chess a western board game in the hatnote would be similar to introducing the curry page as being about a Japanese dish.

I also disagree that the term International chess would cause confusion among readers. The term western may be better in some respects, but as the page is about chess in general, it would be better to use international chess, as it more accurately represents the history of the game and takes into account the contributions of others in addition to those of the west.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347

But there is only one page for chess just like for curry.

There are actually two—this one, and Chess (disambiguation). This page is for the Western game of chess in particular, as you can see in the lede, which refers to xiangqi as a "similar game", and in how the rules section contains no mention of any rules other than the Western ones. The purpose of the hatnote is to clarify that this article does not cover those other games, including xiangqi and chaturanga (Japanese curry too explains that the history of curry goes back to India and Britain, and it is still described as a Japanese dish), in any way other than their relation to the Western game, and thus coverage of them is limited within this article, and to lead them to the disambig if the western game in particular isn't what they want. Kaotao (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kaotao!,

The disambiguation is NOT a page and the purpose of the hatnote is NOT to help differentiate between different forms of chess but rather to separate the page from others which have the exact same name.

As for the rules, it clearly mentions that they are those of FIDE. If you were to go to the rules of chess page, you will see chess being introduced as just a strategy game(not western) and that the rules have been set by FIDE, as well as the fact that they can vary from region to region.

I totally agree with you that what we call chess now is more or less the western form of the game. Hence western chess is mentioned as a synonym alongside International chess.

I only object to the use of the term "western board game" in the hatnote. Chess, rather than being a single game, is a lineage of games which began in India. Since the page is on chess in general, it would be better to use the other synonym "International chess" instead, especially when the rules of the game have been set by FIDE, which is an international organization. Introducing chess as a western game completely ignores the contributions made by others. Western chess is already mentioned as a synonym. I don't see why the entire game should be called western. In my opinion the best way to introduce chess would be to call it a strategy board game, and this is exactly the description you get if you were to type chess into the search bar.

Let's replace "western board game" with either international chess(it's other synonym), modern chess or just strategy game.

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347 Yes, there are multiple games referred to as chess, but this article is dedicated solely towards the western game of chess. Neither FIDE, nor this article, list the rules of chaturanga, shogi, or xiangqi, because the western game alone is the focus of both FIDE and this article. Any other games mentioned here, including those in chess' lineage, are mentioned only in relation to the western game of chess. Part of the purpose of the hatnote is to clarify this, which is the entire reason why we need an adjective like "western" in the first place (the disambig page doesn't just contain pages with the name "chess", it also contains links to articles for games like xiangqi and shogi). This is what makes "western board game" a more prudent option, because "modern chess" could imply inclusion of modern games like shogi, and international could imply inclusion of all others to people less familiar with chess terms. "Western board game" is both an intuitive and accurate way of specifying the scope of this article, which does not include chaturanga similarly to how the smartphone article is not dedicated towards the rotary dial, even if it does end up covering it in relation to the smart phone. Kaotao (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

We should primarily go with what sources say. I do not know if that would indicate "Western" og "International" as a qualifier when we need to explicitly distinguish this game from other variants. However, if those two qualifiers are both common in sources, we can instead choose based on what makes most sense. The variant in question was basically settled in Southwestern Europe in the 15th century (or something like that), though certain details were settled internationally in the 20th century. To me, "Western" seems a slightly odd way to reflect this history and the current status of the variant; "International" would seem more reasobnable. Nø (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nø!

I also very much agree. Calling it international chess would be better. Calling it western would imply the ownership of the game by one particular group of people, ignoring its origins and contributions made by other cultures. Calling chess Western would be just as wrong as calling it Indian, although it originated there. I have absolutely no objections to mentioning that the current form of the game developed in the west, and this is already mentioned in the lede. In my opinion the best way to introduce it would be to just call it a strategy board game.

What do you think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As I indicated in the 2021 discussion, sources can be cited for both "Western chess" and "international chess". Prior to that, we had been using "the Western board game" for years, and after the 2021 flap, we went back to "Western board game" for a few more years, so at this point, it can reasonably be called the status quo. I do not see a substantial motivation to change it, but if it were changed to "international chess", that might work as well. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bruce!,

The page on Chess was created in 2002 and the "western board game" part was only added in late 2010. So for almost a decade there was no hatnote, just the disambiguation.

I think the best is to get rid of the hatnote, and if we are going to keep it, it would be better to just write "strategy board game" instead of "International chess", because that sounds a bit odd as well. Both terms by the way are included under synonyms. I do not see any reason why either of them should be at the top. The page is about the game in general, as it is played now, in its standardised form.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I completely agree that "western chess" like "International chess" is an accepted term which is in usage.

My only objection is against using "western chess" or the much worse "a western board game" to describe the entire page on chess. The same goes for International chess.

Terms like Western/International/Modern are only used when there is a "need" to distinguish the current form of the game from other variants. The page on chess is about the game in general, as it is played now, in its standardized form.

I think the best way to introduce the game would be to just call it "a strategy board game". The terms "western chess" and "International chess" have already been mentioned under synonyms.

Can we please come to some kind of consensus,

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Since international and Western are both reasonable ways to describe chess, to a large degree this is bikeshedding. But Oceanbed347 has the right idea. "International" and "Western" are not necessary or helpful in a brief description of chess. The "strategy board game" suggestion is closer, but I'm not crazy about it because it isn't really clear to me precisely what a strategy board game is. The board game page won't explain that either since "strategy" barely makes an appearance about eight sections and several screens into the body of the article. In fact the section board game#Luck, strategy, and diplomacy doesn't explain what a strategy board game is and it doesn't even use the word "strategy" once except in the section title. So, "strategy board game" isn't the best.

We're making this much too hard. The correct short description of chess is "a board game for two players". Finis. Quale (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

There's still a distinction between traditional board games, which arose organically and evolved over hundreds (even thousands) of years and have a rich cultural history, and modern commercial board games which arose in the 19th century. How about "traditional board game for two players"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

While I initially liked the succinct short description "board game for two players" (no need for "traditional", I believe), discussing the short title, we must take its purpose into consideration (WP:SHORTDESC). Most wikipedia readers will be perfectly familiar with the title "Chess", so perhaps we do not need a short description at all. If we need it, it is because there is an ambiguity or lack of clarity in the title - and that means, in my opinion, that the short title should disambiguate between different "chess" games; what else could the purpose be? Nø (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I also think that there is no need for a short description. If you look at the page's history, it was only added in late 2010, before that it was just the disambiguation. Most people know what chess is, and the terms Western/International are already mentioned under synonyms.

If we are to keep the hatnote, I think it would be better to just write "strategy board game" or "board game for two players", even the chess(disambiguation), says "two player board game", no mention of western/international. The description need not exactly correspond to what is written on the "board game" page. It is only there to give just enough information to the reader so that he/she knows what the page is about, and to help distinguish this page from other pages which also have the same name. And even those other "chess" pages clearly mention what they are about(film, magazine, poem...). As for chess variants, none of those pages are called chess, they have their own names like chaturanga, shatranj, xiangqi. And if you were to look at the disambiguation in those pages, they only mention other pages which have the same name, for example shatranj(film), and not other chess variants.

I am in favour of removing the description altogether as I believe that it serves no useful purpose.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to Nø and Oceanbed347 for confirming that there was a sudden and unannounced shift from discussing the hatnote to discussing the short description.

I disagree that the short description is unnecessary. There are indeed people who don't know what chess is. I think the assumption underlying every Wikipedia article is that the reader may not know anything about the topic.

The old short description, "Strategy board game", looks kind of unhelpful, as explained by Quale. I think "Board game for two players" is OK. I understand the distinction being made by the word "Traditional", but the short description doesn't have to mention that. Its purpose is to appear underneath the title in the list of article titles that you see when you start typing "Chess" into the search box. It can be, and should be, pretty rudimentary. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I thought the short description was the hatnote. It is the hatnote which I think is unnecessary, and not the short description(the first line in the first paragraph). The short description is essential and I agree with everyone here that it must be included.

I apologize for the confusion, sorry!

As for what should be written in the short description, I am totally fine with "board game for two players". I only disagree with using the terms "western chess" or "international chess" to describe the game.

What do you guys think?

sorry again for the confusion.

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruce. I waited a while before commenting here because I don't think it's very important, but clearly I should have abstained completely because I'm part of the discussion topic confusion between the {{About}} hatnote and the short description. Regarding the hatnote, it simply points to chess (disambiguation) and I don't think it matters too much what it says. "Western chess" seems reasonable there. Regarding whether or not the article needs a short desc, well I would be perfectly happy if all shortdesc were jettisoned into the sun. But since we have them, chess does need a shortdesc because there are many things called "chess" including a well known musical, several movies, computer programs, etc. Quale (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I thought the short description referred to the first line of the first paragraph. I didn't know it was referring to the description you get when you type "chess" into the search bar.

I see that it has been changed to "traditional board game for two". I don't think "traditional" is a good way to describe the game. As "traditional" would imply something that is strongly associated with a particular culture, eg. Traditional dance.

I think "strategy board game" or "board game for two" sounds better.

It is the hatnote at the top of the page, which reads, "this is about western chess", that I think is unnecessary. Western chess and International chess are already mentioned under synonyms, just in case someone needs to know which form of the game the page is about.

Shall we remove the hatnote and change "traditional board game" to just "board game for two"?

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2025

Chess is not a 2 player game because many people can play it like four player variant such stuff! KingKeya99 (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Unclear and no sources, this article is about normal chess. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You might want to check out List of chess variants, perhaps the variant you have in mind is already listed. If it isn't, perhaps you can contribute something to it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

See Four-player chess. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 03:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)