Revision 52508151 of "Talk:Sample chess game" on enwiki

{{facfailed}}
i added this to [[Wikipedia:Brilliant prose]]. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 18:09 26 May 2003 (UTC)

----

==Notation for mate==

Mightn't it be wiser to use # for mate (and not ++)?

: Use "#".  It's what PGN uses. -- [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 18:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

==Two notations: which is better?==

(Should we use "x" or "times" when taking a piece?)
: Rxh5++
: R×h5++

[[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 03:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:I'd just use "x".  I don't think many people can tell the difference. -- [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 18:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)


==Coordinates==

Excellent page! What's missing are coordinates on the images, so the lay reader knows where e7 is. Or could that be done by colour-coding, as in "the queen could now move to the red square"? [[User:Thore|Thore]] 12:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I'm glad you like the page.  Please feel free to take it in whatever direction seems appropriate.  I agree that the images should have coordinates, but I added the images way back when it was still a novelty to have images at all.  Doesn't Wikipedia now have a script for encoding chess positions in a way that folks can modify them?  I've quite fallen out of touch of late, not editing anything but [[Arimaa]], so I'd be happy if someone else brought this old article up to date.  Thanks --[[User:Fritzlein|Fritzlein]] 17:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


:Done. I've changed this over to the new "Chess diagram" template. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Standard_chess_diagram Chess diagram appears to be the new standard for chess diagrams on Wikipedia].  And it so happens that "chess diagram" shows the coordinates. Chess diagram also displays better on some systems; on my system, the old "chess position" has garbage lines between the rows, and Chess Diagram displays correctly. -- [[User:Dwheeler|Dwheeler]] 18:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

== Congrats! ==

This is really an excellent page on chess! Aimed at begginers, it really seems to get it as right as possible!

Shouldn't we name it for «featured article»? Do you know how to do it? [[User:Velho|Velho]] 23:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

:Done! See [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sample chess game]]. --[[User:ZeroOne|ZeroOne]] 13:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

::While I don't think this is right for a featured article, I would argue that this page merits its place in Wikipedia. I thought I would copy my argument to that effect here, so it doesn't disappear along with the featured article nomination... [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 09:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

:::Some paper encyclopedias have full pages which are not mostly text: maps, or diagrams of the legislative process, or little picture galleries with examples of eight different kinds of lace, or whatever. In the more vertical (and more nonlinear) format of a web browser it makes sense to put things like this on their own pages, rather than break up the main text column with them (and they won't necessarily fit to the side of it). So not every Wikipedia page has to be exactly an "article". The page [[Sample chess game]] does not belong on Wikibooks because it is not a textbook or part of a textbook. Rather, it is a supplementary document for the encyclopedia articles [[Chess]] and [[Rules of chess]]. Such supplementary documents should probably never be given featured article status, since they are not encyclopedia articles per se (thus I '''oppose''' this nomination), but there is no good reason to delete them, or to transwiki them to other Wiki projects whose stated criteria they are equally unsuitable for, either. (If anyone wants to get gung-ho about every Wikipedia page being an article per se, rather than some pages serving subsidiary functions, they will have to delete or transwiki all "[[List of]]" and "Timeline of" pages, to begin with.) [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 09:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

== 10% ==

"White wins 10% more often than Black" would mean "White wins 110% as often as black", whereas it's more like 137%. (Compare with "New Zombinex has 30% more saturated fat than the competition.") Similarly, "white's advantage over black is 10%" gives the same wrong impression plus additional confusion over how ties are figured in. I think my new phrasing makes it clear, but if you can think of another phrasing that also makes it clear, feel free. Also, this is one figure that would be good to cite...[[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 08:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

:I think your edit makes it more accurate without making it unreadable.  Sadly, for true accuracy we would have to define ''expected score'' and say "White's expected score is 0.55". --[[User:Fritzlein|Fritzlein]] 21:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

== 6.... d5 ==
"This move is necessary, since 6...Kg6? 7.Qf5+ Kh6 8.d4+ g5 9.h4! would leave White with a crushing attack."  Let's say I'm confused by d4+. [[User:70.129.156.206|70.129.156.206]] 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

:It's a "discovered check"; after that move, Black is in check from the bishop on c1, which the d-pawn was blocking before. Does that clear it up? [[User:DanielCristofani|DanielCristofani]] 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)