Rules of chess has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept October 20, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

WikiProject Chess	(Rated GA-Class, Top-importance)	ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:Chess-WikiProjectchess articles
Chess portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is in the list of Selected articles that are shown on the Portal:Chess.

Archives
Archive 1

Contents 1 Ordered lists 2 Div col 3 Redundancy in castling description 4 En passant 5 Question 6 Irregularities and Recording Moves and Timing errors/incomplete 6.1 where is it written that draw offers should be notated?

[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] Div col

Regarding this edit, is {{div col}} really a better way of doing columns? From a structural standpoint, of course divs are better than a table for this, but the template does break the columnness completely on half of my Windows browsers (Opera and IE7; works fine with Firefox and Chrome). Not that having all the see alsos in one column is a big deal, but it wasn't intended, was it? —JAO • T • C 11:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was better. Before I made that change the See Also articles were in two columns, using a different system where you have to tell it where to break the columns. This system is more dynamic, you don't have to change where you break the columns if items are added or deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 16:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The "articles about rules" uses the other method. When I made the change, I was using Firefox and it worked just as it should for me. But in IE8 RC1, the new method does not break it into two columns. Bubba73 (talk), 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it back, so it would work with IE8. Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy in castling description

Sorry, I don't know much about chess so I might be wrong but the description of castling seems redundant to me. If the king and the rook have not moved yet wouldn't they always be on the same rank? Could the fourth be removed to make the definition more concise?77.99.151.39 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I just read that pawns can be promoted to rooks. Ignore this question.77.99.151.39 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] En passant

This section is currently looking quite odd, with a diagram and quite a lot(in diagram terms) of text below a little wording besides and a in your face white gap. Suggest the Spanish made diagram is used. Along side e.p can be explained. SunCreator (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

SupportI only learnt chess a few weeks ago, and actually learnt en passant from this page. That diagram is far clearer, the current one took me a while to work it out.--UltraMagnus^speak 10:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I wish the pawns on a5 and b2 weren't there - they could confuse the issue. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Bubba, you reverted the edits of two guys claiming it was vandalism. Personally, I think that might have been good faith. For some time, I actually thought that not calling check would allow you to capture the king. And isn't it true that if you knock over the king it's considered a loss? Also, someone else made an edit that contained profanity yet it was identified as possible vandalization. What's going on? 98.117.158.220 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1: not calling check, capture king - This is absurd.

2: Knock over the king a loss - That is absurd.

3: I don't know about the profanity. Some tools tag that as possible profanity.

Read the article or any of the rulebooks referenced. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 04:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Irregularities and Recording Moves and Timing errors/incomplete

I know that this is to be a worldwide view of the subject, but errors stand out to me.

First, in the subjects of illegal moves and illegal initial positions. FIDE requires a complete retraction for the former and a restart in the latter - correct. In regular USCF play this is true only if the move is discovered the the prior (or first...) ten moves in both cases. (Just & Burg: 23-24, 26.) Since the 5th Edition USCF rulebook is quoted elsewhere in the article, this section should be edited. Even a simple and cited, "Some national bodies have other rules regarding illegal positions."

And where is it written that a draw offer is notated by "="? The only identity/equals sign I know of in Algebraic Notation indicates promotion. (Just & Burg 218.) And where is it written that draw offers should be notated? And again... it's my understanding that in FIDE the move must be made before it is written down - in USCF it may be required but optionally not (not in 5th Edition but rather in rulebook revisions since 5th ed. on USCF's website.)

And again, Timing is not completely correct, as USCF differs significantly in how to claim Insufficient Losing Chances. But oh, well.

Good article, except for the errors and imcompleteness.  ;)

I'd edit it myself. But it's under semi-protection, so I can't. 98.228.92.5 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on those points soon, or you can get an account and then you can edit a semi-protected article such as this one. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Draw offer fixed. Right, USCF rule is that the move is to be made before writing it, but they allow the director to disregard that. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 03:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Illegal moves and wrong starting position - done. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 05:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 7 gives the USCF version of the rule about writing the move first but it isn't referenced. The only reference I know is this and you have to be registered to read the webpage, which we don't like for references. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The USCF's "insufficient losing chances" is in footnote 6. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think all of the issues you brought up have been addressed. Thank you for your keen observations, esp. of FIDE/USCF differences. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! You must have this on your Watchlist.  :) My brain kicked in last night and I realized that whoever contributed the "=" part might have been referring to equality in chess punctuation. (Though I still don't know how we get to draw offer from there.) I just found that Algebraic chess notation has the same error. But I can fix that one.

I didn't know the rulebook changes page was members-locked. Actually, I'm logged in as a member right now and it won't give me access to the link you cited (though I see where you got to it from) - might be a broken link? Wonder if non-members can see http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/reports/RulebookChanges.pdf , where the changes are also noted. The only thing is you'd want to note the retrieved date, as that document changes annually with rulebook revisions.  ;)

And, actually I am registered. User:LaughingVulcan. But I keep on forgetting my darn password. Inconvenient, but not disastrous, thanks to people like you who can remember passwords and will help! Thanks again! 98.228.92.5 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed algebraic chess notation too. Some Wikipedia pages that are vandalized a lot are "semi-protected", which means that people who have not signed up for an account cannot edit them. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 18:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you are talking about the USCF site. Certain things there are allowed only by people who are registered for the USCF website. The link to the rules changes is one of them (I don't know why) so I gave the link and then quoted about two sentences. Bubba73 ^{(the argument clinic)}, 18:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] where is it written that draw offers should be notated?

Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet., from FIDE LAWS of CHESS, page 11. SunCreator (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Article 8.1, fourth paragraph.

• • "Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet."

and Appendix C.13

• • "C.13 The offer of a draw shall be marked as (=)."

So maybe it is marked as "(=)" instead of "=". Bubba73 ^{(Who's attacking me now?)}, 23:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)