Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Chess}}. Tag: |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Chess|importance=Mid}}
}}
==needs improvement==
I think this article needs to be improved. --[[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] 03:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Line 20 ⟶ 21:
Just A little Addition For the Naming The Pieces Table
Icelandic For "Checkmate" is "Skák og mát [[User:Aevarr|Aevarr]] 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
== Japanese Chess names ==
There must be an error. The Japanese names are exactly as the English names, just written in Katakana. In other words, they are just a transcription of English words using their own symbols. It would be sad that the Japanese nouns are in the process of becoming nothing but English written using their own characters.
:Why should it be otherwise? The Western chess pieces are not native to Japan. The Western king, rook, and bishop do exist in [[shogi]], but naturally have different names. The Western queen and knight also appear in some native Japanese [[shogi variant]]s, but again have different names. The Western pawn does not appear in any Japanese shogi variant. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 05:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
== rearrangement ==
Line 59 ⟶ 60:
One other use that might startle someone who reviews old chess literature may be when a rook who's all alone on his back rank moves "R-R1". As he cannot move to the R1 square upon which he now stands, he must be moving to the ''other'' R1, so it's unambiguous on a technicality. Indeed, the next move could indeed be "R-R1" again, if he's reacting to a new threat, or perhaps just wasting time. In some very old forms, the "1" square goes unnumbered, so one might see just "R-R". [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 14:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
This is quite interesting, considering that check is generally considered insufficient to disambiguate the move in AN... [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 18:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
==Hindi/Urdu==
Line 86 ⟶ 89:
:I was just looking at some old issues, and I can state that as late as December 1975, the magazine ''Chess Life & Review'' was still using descriptive notation exclusively. They did have a box in every issue explaining algebraic notation and encouraging its use, however. Beyond that, I recall that Larry Evans' monthly column was the last holdout: he continued to discuss submissions in whatever form the reader happened to send. (Evans himself argued for algebraic as being unambiguous and universal whenever someone asked.) [[User:WHPratt|WHPratt]] ([[User talk:WHPratt|talk]]) 14:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
== Continued use in some symmetrical contexts ==
Annoyingly I cannot remember where I've seen this, but I think I've still seen DN used in specially symmetrical contexts even when AN is used in the rest of the work. It's like the implicit use of DN in phrases like "rook on the seventh" (which in AN is the second rank if Black's doing it). One might then speak of the weakness at KB2 instead of that at f2/f7, or perhaps PxP listed in variations when it doesn't matter which pawn is doing the taking. Or perhaps in the ultimate sentence justifying the use of DN in such a scenario: "A fianchetto consists of the moves P-N3 and B-N2". Can anyone corroborate this hazy memory, though? [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 18:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
:You often see things like this as English language descriptions rather than formal Descriptive Notation, like your "rook on the seventh" example, or generic references to "rook's pawn" or "knight's pawn". Sometimes it makes for more elegant English. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 02:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
| |||