Talk:Checkmate#GA Review

I don't think it needs to be in this article. It is one of many covered in checkmate patterns and it has its own article. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Mann jess redid the References heads/structure, with editsum "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Checkmate&diff=593227018&oldid=593226648 That's not how we should do a bibliography]". Um, that's how Malleus (User:Eric Corbett) does it (for example see Featured Article Stretford) and he is an unquestionably experienced/respected FA-article writer/reviewer. The struture you changed Refs to does not even follow WP:LAYOUT. There are other arguments too, but I'm keeping this short. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

:Stretford does not use harvcol templates inline. Nor does any other FA that I'm aware of. You reverted my change to a more conventional style, presumably because the bibliography and refs sections were under the same heading. I had to guess why you reverted me because you didn't provide any rationale, you just wrote the template's name in the edit summary. I fixed that, with the idea that it may address your concerns. There's nothing in LAYOUT that I can see violated by the current page.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

::I'm having trouble understanding your response. I was referring to the org structure "References" section with un-TOC'd subheads "Notes", "Citations", and "Bibliography". I don't think that's a function of/dependent on harvcol. (That seems to be separate issue; I'm not the editor who added harvcols.) What revert of mine are you referring to where I reverted you re References sec? (Can you diff it so I can see what you mean? When I've changed Ref conventions in articles, I don't recall reverting any editor; maybe I did once and don't remember. And what did you "fix", I don't know what you're referring to.) By out of synch w/ WP:LAYOUT, I mean you put Ref citations *after* Bibliography, and WP:LAYOUT specifies the opposite. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

::Oh -- I think you mean when I reverted your edit moving a harvcol to References section. (On that revert, my editsum said something like that isn't the convention for chess-related articles, which it's not. [Chess-related articles sometimes use inline harvcols, I don't think I've added any or very few of those myself in regular chess articles, and you may be right about that not being the way in FA articles!; but again that's a diff issue and not what I was referring to here.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

:::First of all, thanks for your much more pleasant response. I was referring to your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Checkmate&diff=593226648&oldid=593222110 here], with edit summary {{tq|1="a Harvard inline citation"}}. WP:LAYOUT, a guideline, does say that there is sometimes an order to these three sections. It doesn't much matter to me what order they're in, so if you prefer it a certain way, then by all means, switch them around. I also don't have a strong preference for having three top level sections as opposed to three subsections; I was simply correcting it to a convention I'm familiar with under the assumption it was the reason for your revert (moving the harvcol template into references just linked to another subsection under the same heading, and maybe you didn't like that. I see now that wasn't your reason.) Anyway, I hope that squares these edits away.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

::::OK. One of the reasons I like Eric Corbett's subheading of Notes, Citations, Bibliography or what have you under one "References" sec, is because then those subheads don't clutter the TOC. (I'm presuming, I guess, a reader would seldom or never have need/desire to click on TOC entry for "Footnotes" or "Citations" e.g., and would only go there via links in the text. So then why extend the TOC for those entries?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

:::::A better plan is to get rid of Notes entirely by merging it into References where it belongs. That will reduce clutter. The three-part division of citations is needlessly fussy and serves no purpose. Quale (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

::::::Even on smallish articles, User:Eric Corbett, respected FA article-writer/copyeditor, uses the three, e.g. Beerhouse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::Notes are useful in really well written articles sometimes. I don't know that applies here. I integrated them into the article and refs. Does that work for everyone?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Doesn't work for me, as all you've done is to clutter up the text unnecessarily because of some objection to notes that I don't understand. Your arrangement of the Bibliography before the citations also looks strange, but the article's got so many other problems that one or two more or less don't make much difference. Can you think of even a single use case that would require a reader to click on the References section in the TOC? Eric Corbett 13:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I'm not sure if you're referring to me. I said above, I really don't have a preference in ordering the citations. Feel free to change it however you'd like. I only removed the notes to address a concern from others, but after having actually combed through each one of them, I do support their removal. Notes can be a great place to put tangential (but relevant) text that's too detailed for the body. That wasn't the case; all the text in the notes fit well in the body, or didn't belong in the article at all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::I'll repeat my question then: "Can you think of even a single use case that would require a reader to click on the References section in the TOC?" Eric Corbett 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Sure. I've clicked on it before, for 3 reasons: 1) To check how well sourced the article was, 2) to get to the bottom of the article quickly, 3) to find a specific reference manually, without having to scour the whole article for its link. I often use wikipedia to find references for a topic, not just to get a wikipedia summary. That said, I don't really know how this applies to what we're talking about.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::Those reasons seem to be for purposes of an editor. (Articles s/b stuctured for their readers, not editors.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::::You still haven't answered my question adequately. Why would you ever want to check for a specific reference manually as a reader? And if you want to get to the bottom of an article quickly as a reader you can simply click on your End button. Why is it more important as a reader to get to the bottom of an article quickly, from the TOC let's remind ourselves, than it is to quickly get to the top? And as you claim not to understand why this is relevant to what we're talking about try reading Ihardlythinkso's comment above about unnecessarily cluttering up the TOC. Eric Corbett 19:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{{od}}I really don't get the animosity. When Ihardlythinkso said he preferred things a different way, I said it was fine and encouraged him to make the change. As a reader, I've clicked on the "References" link for those three reasons. You asked me, and I answered. Finding out if an article you're reading is well sourced is important for a reader. Finding sources on a given topic is important for a reader. Navigating the article can be useful to a reader.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:You're getting complete bewilderment at the logic of your position, and your inability or unwillingness to answer a simple question. Which is in what way does your structure, at odds with the recommendation in WP:LAYOUT, help a reader? Not an editor but a reader. But of course the question is by now hypothetical, as it clearly doesn't. Eric Corbett 20:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::I don't know what else you want me to say. Honestly. Can you give me an example of an answer you feel would address your question? Because I can't, for the life of me, see how I haven't answered it twice. Nothing about the current structure is at odds with layout, except possibly the order of "short citations" and "long citations", which I've repeatedly encouraged you and ihardlythinkso to switch if you want.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::But that's precisely the point. There is no use case to justify your cluttering of the TOC. Eric Corbett 21:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::Your question is "why would a reader click on the references link", right? A reader would click on it to find references for a topic. Why is that not an answer to your question? I know Pritchard published a book on chess variations. If I go to the article of a chess variation, like Antichess, and click on "References", I can find his book. I can also find other books published about chess variations, which is useful to me, as a reader. I'm honestly completely lost by this whole conversation. What's the edit being proposed?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::Hard to believe you're not getting this ... Of course every WP article will have a "References" sec and corresponding clickable link in the TOC. What's been referred to here is the non-utility and excess clutter re your breaking up that sec into separate secs "Bibliography" and "References". (And besides looking weird, it'd confuse blind users I think who expect to find in WP:LAYOUT order.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::I'm waiting for a reply from {{u|Eric Corbett}} regarding his question. Please respect my request in the section below. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I've already said all I intend to here. I can waste my time much constructively elsewhere. Eric Corbett 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Got it. So no edit is being proposed, and your question doesn't relate to article improvement. I'm happy to move on, then. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Original text:

The symbol "++" is sometimes used, but rarely. It can also mean double check.

The symbol "++" is also, rarely, used, but it can also mean double check.

The symbol "++" is also, rarely, used, but, it can also mean double check.

:I combined the sentences to avoid an ambiguous "It". ("It", meaning "++", or the "#" we were just talking about more extensively?) I don't think adding more commas really helps. If you see a way to remove commas without introducing ambiguity, I'd support that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC

::{{tq|I don't think adding more commas really helps.}} Um, I, was, obviously, being, facetious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::I tried something different. Let me know if that works for you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::A rewrite wasn't necessary; it was a perfect application for Notes seeing that "++" is also old-style notation and not used on WP except in the Double check article, and there was no ambiguity as a Note, but, you sac'd that solution when you eliminated Notes. I won't be commenting any further on your copyedit decisions, it eats up too much of my time for no good. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::Since the article claims it is notation used for a checkmate, it is relevant to our article on checkmates. I removed Notes to address your and Quale's concerns about clutter. You're welcome. See you around.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::Um, Quale's and my concerns about clutter were different. For my concern, you created the concern with your change. (Saying you solved my concern when there was no concern, makes no sense.) p.s. I never eliminated the "++" info from the article, I simply moved it to Notes, where it was more appropriate. But you quashed that by removing Notes sec. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::You said the TOC was cluttered by the three sections, suggesting fewer than three would be good. Then Quale suggested we remove notes altogether. So I did. I, personally, didn't care either way. You just said you wouldn't be participating in the discussion further. If you changed your mind and you want to talk about it, let me know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Exactly. (You created my concern about clutter, by creating clutter where previously there was none.) Regarding your editsum {{tq|And please don't break up my replies, it makes it appear as though I was responding to a comment I was not.}} you are completely in error. (Your posts were already broken up, by you. I responded to your first post, using proper indenting. There was no ambiguity or anything improper, yet you move my post to an out-of-context position, while accusing and admonishing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

:::::::Re {{tq|You just said you wouldn't be participating in the discussion further.}} That's not what I said or meant. What I said and meant was that I would not be commenting on any (future) edits of yours to the article since dealing with you is impossible and leads to a waste of time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I'd prefer we don't interact further. The only content issue you brought up in this section is one I already addressed. Please don't address me further, unless you're prepared to do it with a fundamentally different approach, and please don't move or refactor my comments to different areas than I place them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 3:47 pm, Today (UTC−5)

{{od}} You inappropriately moved my post in this thread twice, about your copyedit. The elimination of Notes section where that sentence best belonged is also a topic here, so quit hatting it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{{tq|I'd prefer we don't interact further. Please don't address me further, unless you're prepared to do it with a fundamentally different approach}} Should I template your user Talk re "comment on content, not editors"? Do I need to remind you what article Talk is for? Seems to me you initiate personal comments to create irrelevancies you later use as basis for hatting. (A nice trick; but a dishonest one.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Chess reached Europe from Iran via origins in India, perhaps through other lands - this is no way means it came from the "islamic" anything. There is no need to reference this religion as it does not comprise the identity of Iran or the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.29.247 (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm admittedly a chess novice, but I don't think the "Scholar" and "Fool's" mate are at all common, yet they're here in the "Common Checkmates" section. I would think they would be better in an "Unusual Mates" section?-jwanders^Talk 17:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be only a single sentence, under Etymology, on how the word is used outside chess. It seems like that usage deserves a bit more coverage, probably to the point of being a paragraph in the intro or a smallish section. Outside chess, I'd say that "checkmate" connotes not only defeat, but that one must have been maneuvered into a position where there is no escape. I'd say that defeat by brute force or accident doesn't qualify, and that one must be trapped, not killed.

However, I can't immediately come up with a referenceable source that describes that usage.

Jordan Brown (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

: It's possible that editors have gotten stuck on WP:NOT#DICT. I don't know if we have anything encyclopedic to say about the use of "checkmate" outside of chess that isn't simply a dictionary definition. Quale (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The text describing different situations, depending on which side moves first, appears contradictory and garbled. A chess expert should be able to resolve this easily.CharlesHBennett (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

: It's sometimes not possible, simply because if the bare king is to move, in some positions, the king can immediately capture one bishop. 195.157.65.228 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The article currently has nicknames for several of the checkmate types, such as "corridor mate". I suggest adding "lawnmower mate" for the two major pieces mate. 195.157.65.228 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I corrected the poor English and someone reverted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Checkmate&oldid=prev&diff=846637094

: You changed it to an incorrect statement. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hii, there's another 'CHECKMATE' dude. It was a K-Pop co-ed group JamphiKpop (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

: If Wikipedia has an article about them, list it at Checkmate (disambiguation). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Prior to 20th April 2018, the Etymology section stated:

Players would announce "Shāh" when the king was in check. "Māt" (مات‎) is a Persian adjective for "at a loss", "helpless", or "defeated".

On 20th April 2018, an anonymous user at IP address 120.21.12.249 changed it to

Players would announce "Sheikh" when the king was in check. "Māt" (مات‎) is an Arabic adjective for dead "helpless", or "defeated".

- together with other changes from "Persian" to "Arabic" and "Shah" to "Sheikh". No explanation was given for this edit.

In view of the form of the word in other European languages I am fairly sure that the Persian origin is the correct one - e.g. in German Schachmatt = checkmate, in Czech šach = check and mat = checkmate. Please note the English version has come via French and got rather mangled in the process so the superficial resemblence to "sheikh" doesn't count for much.

I suspect that the anonymous user's changes were vandalism and/or misplaced nationalism ("everybody knows we invented it"), so I have reverted the changes. If anyone has access to the quoted source (H.J.R. Murr's 'A History of Chess') then could they please check it?

HairyDan (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

: I think this has long been debated. I don't know what is correct. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

: I'm aware that there is some debate over whether "mate" comes from Persian or Arabic - and that is still reflected in the paragraph now that I have reverted the anonymous user's changes. But that is not what those changes were about - they were altering information which is attributed to H.J.R. Murray so that it gives an Arabic origin instead of a Persian one. I assume the user who got the information from Murray in the first place didn't change which language it refers to, so I'm fairly confident my edit must be correct in terms of what the quoted source says, regardless of the wider issue. HairyDan (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

:: Yes, you are right about that. I have some different books on the history of chess, but not that one. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I hear there is another checkmate just 3 moves, there is e4 e5 Qh5 Ke7? Qxe5#, why this isn't popular? But this is faster than Scholar's mate, only fool's mate is fastest, even White can do this by e4 f6 e5 g5? Qh5#. And some people called it Longboard mate NoPreserveRoot777 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|Bubba73}} Since the subheaders for "Two knights" and "Three knights" were changed to use semicolon instead of === ===, there is no longer an anchor in this article for "Two knights", and the reference to that anchor in Stalemate doesn't work so well any more. There is a warning about this problem in the header of Talk:Stalemate. I would fix this by changing those subheaders back to using === ===, but I don't know anything about using semicolon, and I don't know why you did that, so I'm pinging you. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

: If it used ==== / ====, would that work with the anchor? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schachmatt&redirect=no Schachmatt] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 19#Schachmatt}} until a consensus is reached. ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

About 5 years ago, there was a draft on the two bishops checkmate written on User:Qwertyxp2000/Two bishops checkmate. Today, I decided to import this draft into the mainspace under the Checkmate article under the Checkmate#King and two bishops section. After importing basically the majority of the draft article, minus displays of the unforced checkmate (which is likely irrelevant to an article discussing about ways to do checkmate, since the two forced checkmate methods of the two bishop checkmate are likely enough to back up information about two bishop checkmates).

The new revised section ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Checkmate&diff=1178341234&oldid=1171921489 comparison with diffs]) of the "King and two bishops" section post-importment seems like its grammar and wording is better formatted, but the general style in that section still needs some work. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

: I think it is good to go here. It probably isn't long enough to be a separate article, but maybe it could be. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

An important element is missing: "everyone knows" what checkmate is, but there is often a doubt whether the clock must be hit or not after you give checkmate: some say the move is not completely played until you hit the clock, some say the game ends immediately when you give checkmate -- but did you give checkmate if you didn't play the move completely including hitting the clock?

However, the word "clock" is absent from this article (as of today), it would be helpful to add a clarification about this major, "interesting" part of the definition of when the game is over. Thanks in advance! — MFH:Talk 19:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

This is and odd wording: "requires a maximum of 19 moves." A maximum wouldn't normally be considered a "requirement." A minimum would be. The current wording implies that it's not possible to mate with MORE than 19 moves (and even at that the wording would be odd). If that's not what's intended, I'd recommend changing the wording. MainePatriot (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

:How's this?: "Accomplishing the mate requires at most 19 moves." --IHTS (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)