This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Chess and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:CHESSWT:CHESS

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Chess This page 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.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess

WikiProject Chess was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 January 2013.

Skip to bottom of page to add a new topic or see most recent new topics.

USCF's change to its player lookup

USCF has just changed its player lookup and there is a notice that the old system is deprecated and won't be updated. However, the USCF template for use in External Links to link to a player's rating and tournament record uses the old system. Can we update this? Otherwise there is going to be massive linkrot. I am a newbie editor and unfortunately don't have the technical skills to help with this, but I hope someone else can. M kuhner (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@M kuhner: - Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I looked at this a few weeks ago but I didn't make any changes at that time because I was traveling and template editing is not my forte. I think I have {{USCF}} fixed up now. I checked a few player bios and the US Chess ratings links seem to work. Please take a look and let us know if you find any issues. Quale (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I checked the article where I first spotted the problem and the USCF rating links to the correct page now. Thank you for fixing this! M kuhner (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Should we adopt an in-house ENGVAR for openings?

Short description for Greg Hjorth

Please see talk:Greg Hjorth#Short description. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Renaming the pages for White's first moves besides 1.c4, 1.d4, 1.e4, and maybe 1.f4

For those who have not seen, there is renewed discussion going on at Talk:Zukertort Opening, following the rejected merger request (filed as AfD due to a policy change) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zukertort Opening. The idea of renaming Zukertort Opening, a very rare name for 1.Nf3, to simply 1.Nf3, has come up. I think this could apply to every first move except non-obscure ones like the four listed (and maybe 1.g4, which I feel like arguably has a clearly dominant and recognizable name? Or it could be applied to all 20 moves, moving King's Pawn Game to 1.e4, but idk about that) and could be an elegant solution to the problems surrounding 1.Nf3's page while observing WP:COMMONNAME at least to some extent, as most/all of the names for moves outside of c4/d4/e4/f4 are obscure at best; "1.Nf3" is much more common than "Zukertort Opening", and although "Réti Opening" is a common name, it's ambiguous with 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4. Thoughts? Dayshade (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's arguable whether 1.f4 or 1. f4 is actually the "name" of an opening. It is notation for an opening, but I wouldn't consider it to be a name for the Bird. As a practical matter there is no difficulty in finding the 20 opening moves using chess notation as wikipedia has redirects for all of them. 1.f4 and 1. f4 are blue links and you can use 1.f4 or 1. f4 in the search box. Some things are obscure but still need wikipedia articles, those articles must have titles, and we have WP:RS sources for the titles. Using chess notation as article titles would require that we choose between notation with or without a space after the move number. If we don't make that change (and I think we should not change) then we can avoid that question entirely. (If we were to rename the articles to chess notation I think we would use the space because this is overwhelmingly the practice outside of WP. Our WP chess project house style omits the space only because 20 years ago I thought it looked much better without. Yes, that's my fault.)

Ironically, yesterday I watched a YouTube video reviewing chess in a television episode that referenced the Bird by name. (As the YouTuber pointed out, the opening shown was actually a Dutch Defense....) Quale (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, at least I think looks better without the space too, and there's another subtle benefit in that when you're searching a massive file of pgn or something, putting a space before a possible move would limit it to Black's moves, while putting a period would limit it to White's moves, but with the space between the period and White's move styling, this doesn't occur. Regardless, leaving out the space could be compared to our practice of e.g. using "Basman Defence" instead of "Basman's Defence" if the latter were to appear in a source. I don't mind going with 1.Nf3 or 1. Nf3 myself. Both would lead to the removal of the problematic Zukertort Opening name. And regarding the coincidence, that is really cool. Dayshade (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Also would say that your argument raises questions about allowing headers to contain only notation with no words. I still think WP:COMMONNAME creates serious issues for obscure names like at 1.Nc3, and as for the other WP:CRITERIA, recognizability could be an issue for those not fluent with pgn, though it's still an issue for the current titles, naturalness could go either way, and using notation is better for precision and concision. Dayshade (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with your second paragraph. I suspect a large number of readers of chess articles (possibly even the majority) are not fluent with chess notation. And as I described earlier, I don't think 1.f4 is a common name for the Bird. Quale (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait, you even disagreed with the precision and concision part? I thought those at least those two were undeniable, plus naturalness mentions "likeliness to be linked to", which is true for chess editors, as opposed to readers, which it also mentions, though readers are more likely to readily understand pgn for the first move (or two moves, like 1.e4 e5) than e.g. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, which seems absurd. And regardless, as I mentioned in my originally comment, keeping some articles with their dominant non-notation names (probably 1.e4, 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.f4, and maybe 1.g4), while other like 1.Nf3 use the notation name, is fine too. Dayshade (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

New piece icons

Now, this is my first time asking something like this, so apologies if there's something I'm missing.

I recently added some new icons for pieces into the SVG piece table which you can view here (I specifically added the nightrider, ferz, wazir, dabbaba and short rook icons), and I want to ask if people would be in support of incorporating these images into article in place of the usual upside-down pieces. Not only would this increase the diversity of piece images, it would also allow for, say, both the camel and nightrider to be used in a single diagram, and would bring the articles into alignment with other chess variant websites that already use icons like mine for these pieces. Plus the ferz's icon specifically was recently incorporated into Unicode, so there's precedent for using that icon for the ferz specifically. Sammy2012 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Are any of these symbols (or similar) commonly used in literature on fairy chess or chess variants? By the way User:Ihardlythinkso is our expert on this topic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I see, but I honestly don't want to have to deal with them because they were rude to me last time I interacted with them. Sammy2012 (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

So I see, I think he's a bit fed up and disillusioned with Wikipedia. Well, I share JBL's skepticism about the quality of the chess variants web page as a source. The problem is that fairy chess and chess variants are such a specialized topic, a niche within a niche, and it is very difficult to find good sources on them. I don't know very much about it myself. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Sokolsky Opening

Can someone else take a look at the current issue at Sokolsky Opening? Dayshade (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Article for Improvement

FYI, the article Chess has been scheduled for improvement by the Article for Improvement project. There is a related RfC. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Chess, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

I look forward to many low quality edits by inexperienced editors. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

No shit. (A user with 60 edits. Account created on March 17, 2026.) "All hat [reorgs, renames]; no cattle [content adds/mods/fixes]." --IHTS (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

1...d6

Should we have an article about this? Balogh Defense and Wade Defence (of note: Talk:Wade Defence has some interesting discussion; "Rat Defense" is a misnomer that according to Harper/Seirawan is an abbreviation of Robatsch Defense that properly refers to 1...g6, not 1...d6) could then be merged. It could be called Pillsbury Defense after Hooper and Whyld's name for 1.d4 d6; this name is not common, but we title lots of opening articles based on names that are rarely or never repeated outside of H&W, most notably Zukertort Opening for 1.Nf3; such an article on 1.d4 d6 would be able to discuss lines after 2.c4 e5 (covered in various repertoire books based on 1...d6), the Wade, the Pribyl System (3...c6), other transpositions, and so on.

Relatedly, should Pirc Defence be restored to be limited to only 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 along with some discussion of White's third move alternatives? Or should there be no discussion of third move alternatives? If there should be discussion of third move alternatives, should there be any discussion of second move alternatives for White? Mihal Marin's 2017 book on the Pirc (Grandmaster Repertoire: The Pirc Defence) includes these as "Anti-Pirc Systems". Dayshade (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

See the intro to An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black (see any free sample of the book) for what real chess players think of naming 1.d4 d6 after Pillsbury. Just cover it under Queen's Pawn Game. Pirc Defence can continue to cover both 1.e4 d6 and 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6; the term can mean either depending on context. This is a common situation with many opening names. Cobblet (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually saw that earlier today! But I don't think there's any better option, and we're already putting up with lots of weird Hooper & Whyld names for White's first moves. Dayshade (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when one of the most reliable sources on the subject is explicitly calling out said wrong. And nobody is insisting we need a separate article for this. Your habit of demanding others solve problems only you perceive is immature and tiresome. Cobblet (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

What "habit of demanding others solve problems only you perceive"? I would be solving this. Besides, Max demands I talk to the community more before making changes, so I can't satisfy both of you. Dayshade (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

So many solutions in search of a problem. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Typical incivility from both of you. Dayshade (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It does seem the narrower meaning is dominant for Pirc and that the broader meaning has been amplified by e.g. chess.com, but there are still enough RSes using the broader meaning. I also have seen authors complaining about the artificial distinction between d6 and g6. Dayshade (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it viable to broaden Pirc to also cover 1...d6 in response to moves other than 1.e4? Dayshade (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

No. While I might think to look under English Opening for coverage of 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5, I certainly wouldn't think to look under the Pirc. Cobblet (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Goals

I think that the WikiProject should have goals to achive and to make chess articles and chess-related articles better. Furbchess (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I think everyone here has that general aim, but what specific goals do you think we should work on? Quale (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I think a good goal is to bring 5 more articles to FA and 10 more to GA. Furbchess (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I actually hate GA and FA reviews. It usually results in a whole lot of people with little or no knowledge of the subject coming in and making poor edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Then we, the WikiProject comunity, should just check the articles after they became GA,FA or FL to see If there are mistakes. Furbchess (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Our flagship article chess recently got flagged as an "article for improvement". Most of the "improvements" turned out not to be any such thing. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the improvements were bad, but AFI is different from GAN, FAN and FLN Furbchess (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

While MaxBrowne2 is correct that there was a lot of wasted effort involved in the AFI for Chess, I have found the GA process to be useful. I have driven one article to GA, and have been a reviewer for another article, and have actively helped in reviewing a few others. I also went through GAR with one article. Just reading, and trying to apply, the "GA criteria", is potentially a good way to learn about things, and make things better, if you have time for it, and if you have access to the sources you need. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Furbchess (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia trying to make improvements to article Bruce leverett (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

what article ? Furbchess (talk) 14:22, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally hit the publish key or some such mishap. Ignore the above, I'll try again. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok Furbchess (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I have spent most of my time on Wikipedia trying to make improvements to articles, but seldom in connection with any of the "processes" (GAN, FAN, etc.). I had edited for 7 years before I even attempted to participate in a GA nomination. GA, FA, FL are useful milestones as far as they go, but most articles will never see them, and most of our work has to be done without actually striving to hit one of those milestones. Another useful milestone, by the way, is creating a new article, or pushing an article past the "stub" stage. But not everybody spends much time doing that, either; for instance I have only created two chess-related articles, and they are both close to stub level. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:38, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

That's true but I wanna see the articles. Furbchess (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Not all articles are worth going through the GA process, let alone the FA process. My intro to editing chess-related Wikipedia articles was editing United States Chess Federation. Although I did substantial work on it, I would not seriously consider "driving" it to GA.

GA is a blunt instrument. Bobby Fischer has been GA since 2014. But when I first started working on it, in 2016, it had horrendous problems, and in the ensuing 12 years I have made more edits to it than to any other article.

Bobby Fischer is the kind of article that should really be driven to FA. But whereas you can drive a biographical article to GA using one serious published biography (such as I did with Paul Morphy), to drive an article to FA you really need a shelf full of published biographical articles and books, and I do not anticipate ever acquiring such a library about Fischer, or any other topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I kinda agree with you and thanks for the feedback. Furbchess (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

In conversations here, when you see the word "project", it usually refers to the infrastructure, such as in this case WP:CHESS and the thing we are reading now, WT:CHESS. A project is not a person or a group of people, so a project does not have goals. But I'm just being nit-picky; I am happy to talk about personal or organizational goals of people working on the project.

Not everybody is focused on articles. Some people are focused on infrastructure; for instance, I had some discussions with a guy who wanted to create templates to make it easier to include a diagram in an article about checkers or a checkers variant. If he succeeded, one would not necessarily see better articles, but one might see more such articles, or articles with more diagrams. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok I understand your opinion. Furbchess (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm and I think you will help make chess articles on WP better. To reiterate one of Bruce's points, one of the strengths of WP is that people have different interests and goals. Everyone here wants to improve chess articles, but some are interested in WP:WikiGnome edits fixing grammar and spelling, improving conformance to the WP:Manual of Style, adding WP:RS references and WP:CITE inline citations, improving WP:CAT article categorization, etc. Some are mostly focused on current news-event types of articles such as articles on FIDE World Championship cycle tournaments, others like to create chess bios on lesser known players of the 19th and 20th century. I patrol edits to chess articles using the public watchlist in User:Quale/publicwatchlist and do database-like edits to list of chess grandmasters to keep it up to date. Recently I've been expanding World Chess Championship 1978. This event is not of the greatest interest nearly 50 years later, but I have some WP:RS and I appreciate that the article won't need to be churned since there isn't a lot of new information coming out about it.

I don't know if you will find a editor here willing to partner with you in an attempt to get a chess article to a Good Article, but that shouldn't necessarily discourage you. My opinion of GA is that it can definitely give us much more polished articles (which I like), but I don't enjoy the process. I've never done a WP:GAN or even really participated in the process, so Bruce knows more about it than I do. My ill-informed opinion is that if you want to pursue WP:GA, first get some practice editing. Then you should at least skim the most important WP content policies, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. If you will work extensively on biographies, the WP:BLP policy on biographies of living persons is also important. To get to a good article you also need a passing familiarity with WP:Manual of Style. The MOS is a monster built up over decades so I don't have any of it memorized and I don't even have most parts internalized at all. You can look up specific points as you need them or other editors will help. For me the most common problems I see concern MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN.

Then pick a suitable article to try to get to GA. You want a topic important enough that there are sufficient reliable sources, but probably not so big as something like chess or Magnus Carlsen. Choose something that interests you and ideally that you have reasonable knowledge of (or are willing to research to become knowledgeable about). It might be interesting to try to get a more current topic to Good Article as online sources are more readily available. (It might also be a train wreck; I don't know how it might go.) I think most or all of the small number of Good Articles we have on chess topics are on things in the past. Then you can get started, and good luck. Quale (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! Furbchess (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC)