Jump to content

Talk:Glossary of chess/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Is "confirmation bias" a chess term?

Is "confirmation bias" a chess term? In a word, no. I think there are a number of good tests to apply to determine whether a term should be added to the chess glossary, here are two:

  1. Does the term have a meaning specific to chess or is it a general concept with the same meaning in chess as elsewhere? If it means the same thing everywhere then it isn't chess jargon and doesn't belong in the glossary. A recent example was the addition of "up" to the glossary. Means the same thing in chess as it does anywhere else. "Confirmation bias" in chess means exactly the same thing it means everywhere else.
  2. Is the term used in chess writing with the expectation that the reader will know it? Of course books for beginners will explain nearly everything, and it is expected that chess dictionaries and encyclopedias will explain most chess concepts. But if the term is very infrequently used in chess writing and is always defined when used, that strongly suggests that the terminology is either rare in chess or even perhaps idiosyncratic to a particular writer. Furthermore if a term is always defined at every use then there's no need for it to be in this glossary as any reader who encounters it will always have the definition right in front of her and this glossary adds nothing. The best candidates for chess jargon are terms that sufficiently experienced players might know but that need to be explained to the less experienced.

"Confirmation bias" fails both of these tests. Quale (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I looked into the study that was cited. Basically players were given a position where the familiar smothered mate pattern was present, but a shorter mate in 3 was also available. The stronger players usually found the 3 move mate, the weaker players (about 2000 level) simply stopped analyzing once they'd seen the smothered mate. However the term used in the study was "Einstellung Effect" rather than "confirmation bias". http://cognition.uni-klu.ac.at/download/Publikationen/Bilalic/Bilalic_etal_2008b.pdf MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for considering this, I thought I’d respond to Quale’s ideas number one and two. Quale’s number one would seem to ban a lot of entries that are now in the glossary (such as: active, adjournment, adjudication, adjust, advantage, etc.)
Quale’s suggestion (number 2) that the concept "is always defined when used" seems way too general and speculative to be a proper criteria. I don’t see how such an absolute and generality can be known or predicted. And it would have to apply to all entries, I assume. I fact, I believe the idea that it "is always defined when used" can be refuted, for example, the notable grandmaster Andy Soltis writing in Chess Life Magazine in April mentioned the concept regarding Tal’s play, but Soltis gave no definition.
There’s another criteria for entries in the glossary that I think should be considered: Whether or not the word represents a concept that is extremely important to a chess player: When a player wants to get serious and improve, and starts realizing it is important to change one’s own thinking during a game, and begin to calculate more deeply, and be more methodical about processes such as finding candidate moves and working through trees of variations … if a teacher were to caution the player about the danger of "confirmation bias", it might help the chess player, it might make him realize, Oh my God, I need to understand that in myself.
Also criteria for an entry perhaps should consider that "confirmation bias” applies to chess in a way that is particularly specific and significant — it occurs during a game right in the "heat of battle".
MaxBrown, that is interesting research — I followed the link, thanks. Yes, I’ve seen elsewhere that "Einstellung Effect" may be a synonym. Apparently Einstellung is a German word.Hollarbohem (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Disagree about #1. "Adjournment" has aspects very specific to chess which give it a meaning in chess distinct from general usage including when adjournments occur and the way in which they are performed. How is someone to look at a dictionary definition of adjournment and know that chess adjournments were associated with time controls? Also see the synonym substitution test below and note that only the term "adjournment" is used in chess and not any of its synonyms.
"Active" also has a meaning in chess that is not well-described in the dictionary definition. Which of these definitions describes "active" as used in chess?
  1. engaging or ready to engage in physically energetic pursuits.
  2. moving or tending to move about vigorously or frequently.
  3. characterized by busy or lively activity.
  4. pursuing an occupation or activity at a particular place or in a particular way.
  5. (of a thing) working; operative.
The closest to the chess meaning is #3, but a piece can be active without ever moving and it isn't clear what lively activity an active chess position has. The chess meaning is not entirely obvious from the standard dictionary definition.
I assume you included "adjust" in your list by mistake because you were going through the A's quickly. If you see simply "I adjust" in a chess context, how is understanding the standard dictionary meaning of "adjust" going to help you understand what that is referring to (what is being adjusted) and its relationship to the touch-move rule? There is other evidence shows that "adjust" has a very specific meaning in chess that elevates it to jargon, the synonym test. In chess only the term "adjust" is ever used. No synonym for the general dictionary term is ever used for the chess concept: modify, alter, regulate, tune, fine-tune, calibrate, balance, adapt, rearrange, change, rejig, rework, revamp, remodel, reshape, convert, transform, tailor, improve, enhance, customize repair, fix, correct, rectify, make good, put in working order, overhaul, put right, set right, set to rights, standardize, normalize, jigger, tweak, twiddle, patch up, see to. I don't think the same can be said about "confirmation bias". Any terms with the same or similar meaning could be used because of the simple fact that "confirmation bias" is a general concept that is not chess jargon and has no specialized meaning in chess.
Advantage is a better argument at failing the first criterion, although I note that the glossary lists some factors that can lead to an advantage and that won't be found in a dictionary. Often in a gaming or sporting context "advantage" would indicate having a superior score, but since chess isn't scored until the game ends the chess usage may require some explanation. Also "advantage" is a term found in many chess glossaries and dictionaries that are WP:RS, see below.
Concerning my second criterion, how is "always defined when used" speculative? It's easy to refute, just provide a counterexample. It isn't a question of prediction, it's just a question of evidence. (We write the encyclopedia with the sources we have and have discovered today. If tomorrow a new source is found (newly written or newly uncovered by an editor), we amend as appropriate.) And yes, this criterion does apply to all entries. You are welcome to point out any entry that you think is always defined when used. I would consider any such terms suspect.
There are other useful criteria that I didn't list. I mentioned the synonym test earlier in this reply. There is also the simple and obvious "the term is defined in other chess glossaries, dictionaries or encyclopedias that qualify as WP:RS reliable sources". As far as I know, "confirmation bias" fails that criterion as well. I do admit that although that criterion is sufficient for inclusion in this glossary, it is not necessary. I am skeptical, however, about any supposed chess term that isn't found in any other chess glossaries, dictionaries or encyclopedias.
"Whether a concept is extremely important to a chess player" is largely irrelevant to whether to what should be in the glossary. And who sez "confirmation bias" is extremely important to a chess player? On the other hand, improving a player's thinking about chess is completely irrelevant to this glossary and to wikipedia as a whole. In fact it is directly contrary to policy – see WP:NOTGUIDE – so no Wikipedia article can be written with the goal of improving a chess player's thinking.
"Particularly specific and significant ... "heat of battle"? What is that about? First, if "confirmation bias" is particularly significant to chess, that needs a WP:RS. You might note that confirmation bias is a long article and that as far as I could see with a quick scan, it does not mention "chess", games or gaming, sports, or heat of battle even a single time. If this was particularly significant to confirmation bias it might deserve a mention there.
Finally, the experiment MaxBrowne reports seems to more directly demonstrate the Einstellung effect (as the report itself indicates) rather than confirmation bias, which seems to me to be a different thing. There are several jokes about a mathematician solving a simple practical problem in a less efficient way because they were able to easily reduce it to an already solved problem (see for example "Boiling Water" at https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/3.htm). That isn't confirmation bias, it's a typically mathematical way of looking at a problem. Chess players may have typically chessic ways of looking at chess positions and those ways may differ with between stronger and weaker players, but I doubt that has anything to do with confirmation bias. Adriaan de Groot studied this problem over 50 years ago, and de Groot had the advantage of being a strong chess player. Quale (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I am unconvinced that either Einstellung Effect or Confirmation Bias are commonly used and understood by chess players, as opposed to psychologists. I vote for removal. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
A search shows a very large number of reliable sources, books and articles, that discuss "confirmation bias" in terms of the game of chess. One source refers to "confirmation bias" as a significant issue for players of the game. Another reports that the late Russian chess teacher, author, and International Master, Mark Dvoretsky taught his students to avoid confirmation bias. (Dvoretsky’s former students include Garry Kasparov, Viswanathan Anand, Veselin Topalov, and others.) Grandmaster Andy Soltis, writing in Chess Life Magazine mentioned the term last month (without defining it) while discussing Mikhail Tal. British Chess Magazine in an article published in 2015 used the term — also without defining it. A book by an author Robert Fischer, who is a tournament chess player (he has the same name as the chess champion) describes "confirmation bias" as pervasive and ubiquitous in chess. Susan Polgar posted in Chess Daily News (2014) an article by William Reville that said "The only way to counter confirmation bias is to be aware of its influence and to resist it robustly." I think people are going to turn to this glossary to look for a definition, which is what I did. While we have entries for words like "board", "piece", "God", and "eat" (eat?), I think it’s reasonable for the glossary to have an entry that, though it exists in a lot of books and articles, may not be all that familiar to some. I would suggest we consider keeping this entry.Hollarbohem (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Exaggerating doesn't really help achieve consensus, there is not a "very large number" of references to this term in chess literature, the first google books hit is a bestselling pop psychology book by Paul Tough and it doesn't get much better from there. We're chess players, we know who Dvoretsky is, no need to name drop or tout his credentials. Has he ever used the actual term "confirmation bias" in his books? Pretty much all chess coaches teach the principle to their students without using the actual term "confirmation bias"; after all "When you see a good move look for a better one" is a well known aphorism among chess players, to the point of being a cliche. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn’t claim that there’s a very large number of references to this term in “chess literature”. What I actually said was (and this can be verified in my comment just above): “a search shows a very large number of reliable sources, books and articles, that discuss ‘confirmation bias’ in terms of the game of chess”. Which is true — I found about thirty reliable sources, and I stopped. I assume there are more. My search included only edited reliable sources that not only discuss the term, but discuss it along with the game of chess (books, magazines, scholarly journals, Chess Life magazine, the chess newspaper column in London’s Telegraph, Psychology Today, Chess Daily News, British Chess Magazine, Scientific American, The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, and so on). My point is not profound, it’s only to suggest that the term appears to a topic of discussion out there in the world of books and magazines. Mr. Brown, the search result that you linked to showed about 4 or 5 books that may support my suggestion, and it included some books that I would not count. Of course that was only one page of your search, and your link suggests that there are nine more pages. All I meant to indicate is that the term is out there being discussed.
I don’t know the author you mention, but I’ve seen articles by him. He appears to be a journalist who writes on education in the Atlantic Magazine, the New Yorker, etc. Pretty respectable. Certainly a reliable source.
I don’t know whether Dvoretsky ever mentioned the term in one of his books, I wouldn’t assume either way. The quote you mentioned (“When you see a good move look for a better one”) you may be right if you’re indicating that it’s not much of a quote, but it also isn’t synonymous with the term we’re talking about — mainly because it omits the idea of bias. I’m very glad to hear from you that you’re a chess player, Mr. Browne. Perhaps we’ve met before? Perhaps even across a chess board? It’s possible, I’ve played a lot of tournaments. It's a thought.
“Confirmation bias” is discussed by a variety of sources including chess masters, chess books, and chess journals, and in various other contexts (according to reliable sources). It’s discussed so often that people I think are going to want to know what it means, and will turn to this glossary to find out. Hollarbohem (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Many reliable sources have also discussed Karpov's cup of yogurt in Game 2 of the 1978 World Championship. That does not make yogurt a chess term. Many reliable sources have discussed the role of luck in chess, and in far more detail and frequency than the trivial mentions of confirmation bias you're referring to. That does not make luck a chess term. Many reliable sources refer to the king's movement, which is just as fast along a diagonal as it is along a rank or file, as a unique property of the geometry of the chessboard. That does not make geometry, or even Chebyshev distance, a chess term. Quale's first criterion applies to confirmation bias just as it applies to all of these other cases. Cobblet (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Confirmation bias is not a chess term. It is a general term. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
When I typed confirmation bias to Google, I got not only the existing Wiki article, but also a dictionary definition; that is, both Google and Wiki already think it's theirs. If we are going to claim it as ours, we had better have a very good excuse, i.e., do chess players mean something different or more specific with this term than other people?
By the way, I notice that this term is of more or less recent coinage. Soltis says, "Before 'confirmation bias' was a scientific term, Tal was a walking example." This confirms my own impression; though I have been playing and reading about chess for decades, I was not really conscious of the term until I saw the conversation that we're now contributing to. This doesn't encourage me to put it in our glossary. There are fashions in jargon, and maybe we should wait to see what happens to this one. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
It might go back to this in 1974. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts ... It seems to me (if you go through the glossary entry by entry) there are four types of entry: 1) that apply to chess & only chess (e.g. artificial castling), 2) entries that share the word or phrase w/ the outside world but the meaning in chess is inherently different (e.g. active, adjust, attraction, battery, bind, bishop, check, etc.), 3) entries that share the word or phrase w/ the outside world but have special or specific meaning in chess (a big bulk of entires fall here, e.g. adjournment, adjudication, advantage, algebraic notation, amateur, analysis, annotation, arbiter, attack, best play, black, blockade, blunder, board, break, breakthrough, bust, bye, calculate, capture, center, etc.), and 4) the word or phrase has precisely the same meaning in chess and the outside world, and when included in the glossary, a prime example or examples are given (there are very few of these, one is e.g. automaton).
So it seems to me confirmatin bias falls in the 4th group. And so it seems, the issue here is whether or not the glossary should or should not contain entries of the 4th type. (The discussion sec title "Is 'confirmation bias' a chess term?" sort of presupposes the answer that the glossary s/ not include entries of the 4th group, which is fine by me, but I think that is the issue here [to include or not include].)
I found it interesting, and I'd like to point out, that The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996) does include entries of the 4th type (e.g. p. 130: plagiarism, the deliberate copying of another's game or composition. Games are sometimes repeated by coincidence, but occasionally almost unknown players have laid claim to games played by grandmasters. [...]); however, I don't know if that observation is relevant to the issue here (probably not), since the OCC is an encyclopedia, not a glossary. (Or maybe that entry is type 3 not type 4, I'm not sure.)
--IHTS (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
To respond to Bruce leverett, the term (confirmation bias) is said to have been coined by Peter C. Wason in 1960. Wason was a chess player — and became an International Master in Correspondence Chess. He co-authored a book on chess (The Psychology of Chess 1983). His games can be found in the chess database chessgames.com.
To respond to editor IHTS’s comments, which I think are very pertinent and should be considered carefully. I have a couple of thoughts. It seems to me that the word "adjust" could be said to fall into his fourth group ("the word or phrase has precisely the same meaning in chess and the outside world") — in the sense that a player can "adjust" the pieces on the board, can adjust his or her scoresheet, bowtie or scarf. And then when the players shake hands — the term itself doesn’t change: You can adjust the pieces as described in the glossary, but you can still adjust the pieces "outside" the description in the glossary (though it may illegal. Although, in practice it’s fairly common — after you’ve moved a piece, and before you hit the clock — to adjust that piece without announcing it.) What’s changed, I think, might not be anything inherent in the term, but the context: chess or chess rules.
There appears to be no "official" list of criteria for this glossary (as far as I know), and that can be a challenge when the discussion begins to feel like a chess board that keeps changing its shape and size during the discussion. It’s good that editors express on this page some different ideas on what criteria they have in mind.
It is said (The Naked Portfolio Manager) that Mark Dvoretsky taught his students to avoid confirmation bias, and in fact one of his students, Garry Kasparov, in his book Deep Thinking (2017) discusses confirmation bias and confirms the substance of that lesson. Sources say confirmation bias is found everywhere in chess, sources say it is a significant problem in chess. The term is used in the context of chess in what I consider a big number of fairly worthy sources: chess columns, chess magazines, books and journals, and it’s not always defined. Which means that people who are interested in chess are going to run into the concept, and look to wikipedia and this glossary for a definition — not necessarily in general terms, but to find out how the term is used in chess. Wikipedia has a great reputation of being very encyclopedic and able to widely embrace and cover its topics. That’s one of the great distinguishing things about Wikipedia.Hollarbohem (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes there's some gray when considering what type an entry is, as I defined them. (I threw adjust into type 2 because of how closely it is tied to the rule concerning it; I think a case could be made for it falling in type 3 as well, or as you did type 4 as well.) Wow, if the "world" term confirmation bias was born from a chess player & author, that's a different type of consideration altogether supporting inclusion as a type 4 entry, but again the issue is whether or not type 4s belong. Meanwhile for what it's worth, here's another type 4 entry in OCC, p. 322: professionalism, the art of surviving on an income derived from chess. [...]. --IHTS (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
All type 4 entries like intuition, plan or refute should be removed. Confirmation bias is just a term describing a specific way in which people lack objectivity in their thinking. It means exactly the same thing in chess as it does everywhere else. Psychological and behavioural terms are used in a chess context all the time, since chess is a mental activity. That does not make them chess terms unless they have a meaning in chess different from everywhere else. It doesn't matter whether I say chess players or social scientists or medieval herbalists are prone to confirmation bias; the precise context does not change the meaning of the term. If confirmation bias is a chess term than so are objectivity, luck, fatigue, memory, creativity, fear, beauty, sportsmanship, ego, nervousness, cheating, etc. Cobblet (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you lecturing me what a glossary is or isn't? I didn't write anything inconsistent w/ your thoughts, my posts here were mainly for purpose of clarifying better what I saw as the issue in contention. As far as my own opinion to include or not include type 4s, it does seem inconsistent to include based on the general understanding of the name glossary: glossary A list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with their definitions. However I remember earlier discussion that this glossary is "not the same thing" as a dictionary which supplies definitions only. (So, that at least made some little flexibility w/ what entries cover.) --IHTS (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing with you on anything – we're on the same page. Just wanted to expand on the last of your categories, which I think are useful. Cobblet (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Another type 4 entry is pattern recognition. --IHTS (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I have issues with category #4. For instance, "automation". It talks about things like the Turk. "Automation" itself should not be in the chess glossary. "Chess automation" is OK. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, I doubt that "cognitive bias" is in any chess encyclopedia. It is not in Golembek's, Sunnucks', Brace's, or Hooper & Whyld. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Cobblet about removing all type 4 terms. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The entry was deleted because the edit summary stated: “definition is incorrect and not supported by the cited source, which does not use the term”. That was my mistake, the article I cited does not use the term. The article in Scientific America that I intended to cite (“Why Good Thoughts Block Better Ones” by Merim Bilalić and Peter McLeod) is "linked to" in the article I cited. So, I will correct this, return the entry to the glossary, and I will supply an accurate citation — so that this discussion will not have been a waste of time. Everything still applies. This discussion includes a lot of thoughtful ideas and contributions by a number of editors. Sorry about this. I should thank sharp-eyed editor, I believe it was Cobblet, for noticing the citation-error. This discussion may be coming to a conclusion, soon. I think we should keep it open for at least a few days in case anyone else wants to add to it. I of course welcome any thoughts on this.Hollarbohem (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

While the above discussion is about how the glossary is managed, it was discussed a little in past about how links s/ be made within the glossary, and the little consensus was if a link in a definition c/ be either an intra-glossary link or an article wlink, we s/ choose the intra-glossary link (and I've tried to follow that when editing the glossary). But the other half wasn't discussed: If a link in an article c/ be either an article wlink or a glossary link, which s/ be linked? In my editing I've generally followed the opposite, using wlinks in lieu of glossary links when both are available. (Not suggesting a rule in stone, since I've come across contexts where it seemed more appropriate to link to the glossary when an article wlink was also available. So what I'm talking about is *the general* convention for when there is no clear preference suggested from the article context. I've been choosing wlinks by default in those cases.) As far as exceptions in the glossary where the context in a definition clearly suggests an article wlink instead of an intra-glossary link, I've never run across even one of those! Ok, --IHTS (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting question, which hadn't occurred to me. When there are both a glossary entry and an article about something, the glossary entry will normally have a link to the article, but not vice versa. So one thought that popped into my head was, "give the reader a link to the glossary entry -- that way he can find both the entry and the article!" However, that's superficial and probably wrong. The reader is likely to be interested in one or the other, but not both. I guess I would tend to favor the article, but as you suggested, context could influence the choice. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Partie

Just an idea, if regular glossary editors feel it belongs here.

'Partie' (for 'game') is obviously French (from partir?), but seems to get used in all sorts of foreign language publications and in chess interviews, biographies etc. It's certainly a common term that I come across a lot, so might be worth including. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Forced win

Is this definition too narrow? For example, K + Q vs. K is a forced win, but most of the moves are not forcing, until near the end.

My def was a "stub". A lacuna in the glossary. I'm less responsible for a complete def than others are for forgetting the term! Plz fix it. --IHTS (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I think that a better definition of a forced win is one in which is a win against any possible defense. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking into this, I saw that we also have winning position, which mentions won game; and a reader might come here to look up win by force or just by force. Need to think about which things to have actual entries for, and which things to mention in other entries, and which things to cross-reference to which. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly; what is entry, what is synonym (which can either be addressed by "See [synonym]" or just an anchor & italic synonym in the def)? This is also missing: theoretical win. --IHTS (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

fivefold and seventy five move entries

I'm not enamored of these new additions to the glossary, they are really just extensions of the threefold repetition and 50 move rules and should be mentioned in the entries for these terms, but not given their own listings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • That's not the way a glossary works. They should be given their own listings since the terms have different names and describe different rules. If I try to look up "fivefold repetition" in a glossary and don't find an entry under "F" I'm not suddenly going to slap my forhead and say, "Oh yeah, I'm a dope – of course "fivefold repetition" can be found under "T", what was I thinking? Quale (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess my feeling is that these terms are not yet part of chess culture, chess vernacular, the chess canon if you like. They're a recent FIDE addition that some players are not even aware of. They could just as easily be repealed in two years. It is unlikely that this would happen to the well established threefold repetition and 50 move rules. I instinctively want to resist the enthusiasm to introduce these terms into chess articles all over wikipedia. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually I agree with you on those points. The new rules are of relatively minor importance and they've been given outsized attention here recently. But I think that can lead to improvements in the articles if we can avoid excessive zeal. Quale (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

meanings or definitions of certain terms

I’ve been trying to look up a few expressions that I’ve heard people use. There are five (so far) that aren’t in this glossary, and I can’t find their definition somewhere else either. For example, “win on demand”. This is used all the time, and people assume you know what it means, (so nobody tells you) and you’d think that you could figure it out by looking at the expression, except that it “looks” like a chess player can win a game just by demanding it. It would be weird if that’s what it means, and just as weird if not. Second, there’s the expression “white square complex” — I know what a white square is, and this must refer to more than one, but what makes squares into a complex? And how many squares can there be in a complex — two or more? I assume there must also be a “black square complex”. Third, the term “drafty”, which may to refer to empty spaces (or possibly a reference to checkers, where the pieces are more spaced-out than chess). But since there are always empty spaces somewhere, even in the opening set-up, then what is it during a game that makes a space “drafty” and other spaces not? Why would someone use the expression? Fourth, “flugel”, which seems to refer to an area of the board, or a direction or destination that the pieces may move to. A flugel is also a horn, like a trumpet. And last, “reserved passer” — a passer is a pawn, and a reserved passer may be a pawn that isn’t a passer, but if all pawns at the start of a game are not reserved passers, then why not? Or, what’s the difference? If anybody has any ideas on this, I’d appreciate it.(Einbildungskraft) (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I too have heard of white square complex and black square complex (but don't have a WP:RS at my fingertips with a proper definition). "Drafty" is slang indicating that there aren't enough pawns defending the king, but I don't know if this rises to the level of belonging in the glossary. Never heard of the others. "Passer" is slang for "passed pawn", but I don't know what "reserved" would mean with that. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It looks like "win on demand" may mean winning an elimination match. https://firstmovechess.org/2019/09/on-demand/ --Trovatore (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
So far I appear to have mostly stumped this talk page as well as myself. "Win on demand" is maybe the most puzzling, because it’s used so often in articles on chess. Plus, when combined with the word chess it gets almost a million search-engine hits. But no one seems to actually define it. "Winning an elimination match", as Trovatore suggests, is certainly a possible meaning. I’m not only interested in a definition, but also a reliable source (to use Wikipedia’s phrase). Without a source chess terms probably shouldn’t even be candidates for inclusion in the glossary. (Not that all these terms are glossary-worthy anyway, but just in case.) (Einbildungskraft) (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I ran across a few more chess terms that don’t seem to be in this glossary. Does anyone know the definitions? 1.) The expression “With Tempo”, as in “move with tempo”. 2.) Pendulum. 3.) Vanishing Move, and 4.) Body Effect. Thanks. (Einbildungskraft) (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think I have seen "with tempo", and as far as I know it just means "with gain of tempo", or "without loss of tempo" (whichever is appropriate). It's a thing, but I suppose it doesn't need its own glossary entry.
"pendulum" seems to be jargon known to chess problemists. I found a reference to it, including a sort of definition, in this article: [1]. If you have access to some book about chess problems, or some general introduction to chess problem ideas, that might be an even better source to cite.
The other two terms don't ring a bell. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Jargon particular to chess problems that is not commonly recognized in chess at large can be described in glossary of chess problems. Of course there are some terms that belong in that article and this one. Checking, I see that "pendulum" is not described in the chess problems glossary. Quale (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
For what it’s worth, I got with these words from the comments on the Saint Louis Rapid & Blitz games. Which is broadcast online — where there’s a lot of terminology. And I’ve notice a real problem that terminology could easily solve: There’s so much chess online these days, so much verbal commentary, and they speak so fast, and there are so many different ways of pronunciation from all over the world, that it is impossible to tell the difference when someone says "D pawn" or "B pawn" or "G pawn". Which is extremely frustrating and infuriating for the audience. Even the people commenting have this problem. Everybody keeps stubbing their toes. The solution: Use the terminology from aviation, where the letters for A B C are: Alfa, Bravo, Charlie, etc. People need to (first) recognize the problem, and if eventually this glossary could actually add those terms, and if it caught on, (the way algebraic notation did before a lot of us were born), this glossary would be making a huge gift to humankind. (Einbildungskraft) (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the leading edge. We add stuff to the glossary only after it has caught on, not in the hope that it will catch on. That's life in the encyclopedia business. Also, I don't see how alpha-bravo-charlie can find a place in a glossary. A glossary gives meanings, but those terms have no meaning, they're just placeholders. But you might be interested to know that I have watched games between blind players in which they use alpha-bravo-charlie to announce their moves to each other. Bruce leverett (talk) 12:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I found nine additional terms (to add to the six above) that are not in this glossary, but that do occur in books, articles and websites. It seems they also should be considered for inclusion here. The terms are: candidate (in reference to a pawn), counterpawn, half-free pawn, front-span (an aspect of a pawn), lever, rim (as in “rim pawn”), sentry, shielding, and wedge (as in “pawn wedge”). (Einbildungskraft) (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Blitz/Blitzkrieg

I should have made it clear that I copied that definition of blitz/blitzkrieg from fast chess to Glossary of chess. I don't know how accurate it is either, but if it is correct, it does not belong at fast chess. However, it would not surprise me if it is a correct, old-fashioned usage. Adpete (talk) 05:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Aha, you can see it appearing twice in the TOC at this preview here: https://archive.org/details/illustratedchess00kidd/page/n9/mode/2up . And then I also found a 1964 New York Times reference, so I am pretty sure it is legit, though probably old fashioned. Adpete (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Definitely worth getting an archive.org account for the library feature, all you need is an email address. I remember that book, read it when I was a kid, but I've never seen the word blitzkrieg used anywhere else in a chess context. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, BTW, for bringing this to the talk page. I can see that Kidder's book is popular, as it is still getting printed after 50 years. So if Kidder uses "blitzkrieg" to refer to mates on f7/f2, it's interesting to me as an observer of trends. But as far as I know, the usage has not caught on. The chess teacher that I took my kids to called it "the four-move mate". If you (or anybody reading this) thinks that there are other teachers or commentators out there calling this "blitzkrieg", then I would concede the point. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I found a 1964 NY Times column that calls this game a blitzkrieg, and add it to the article as a reference. Though I am not 100% if the term is being used for an attack on f7, or an early attack in general. Text is:
"Kevitz is currently battling for another Manhattan crown, during the club's preliminaries for the 1964 title. His performance as White in an irregular Zuekertort Opening against Arthur Feuerstein, a former armed forces champion, began on a fortissimo note and ended in a blitzkrieg route. With his first move, 1 . . . P‐KB4, Black hoped to steer the game into the Dutch Defense. White, however, disdained the tame 2 P‐Q4 and essayed the flamboyant 2 PK4, in typical Kevitz fashion. A tricky opening was formed where Black needed care to avoid being bowled over quickly. Note 4 P‐Q3. If 4 . . . PxP; 5 BxP with a violent assault. In the above line, if 5 . . . N‐KB3; 6 NxP! As the game went, 4 . . . P‐K6 did not solve Black's problems. 6 P‐Q4 gave White a marked initiative. Black, however, was not yet fatally injured. But with his inconsistent 9 . . . B‐N5, a timeconsuming and frivolous maneuver, he allowed White a sparkling sequence."
Game is: 1. Nf3 f5 2. e4 fxe4 3. Ng5 e5 4. d3 e3 5. Bxe3 Nf6 6. d4 exd4 7. Bxd4 Be7 8. Bd3 Nc6 9. Bc3 Bb4 10. O-O Bxc3 11. Nxc3 Kf8 12. Re1 d6 13. Bc4 Na5 14. Nf7 Qd7 15. Be6 Qc6 16. Nxh8 Bxe6 17. Rxe6 Nc4 18. Qd4 Kg8 19. Rae1 Kxh8 20. Rxf6 Ne5 21. Qxe5 dxe5 22. Rxc6 bxc6 23. Rxe5 Rd8 24. g3 1-0 Adpete (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Playing over that game again, I don't think that was especially an attack on f7 in particular. It looks like the columnist is using "blitzkrieg" in the more general sense of a quick / early attack. I have spent MUCH too much time on this, but I think I will amend it to a quick attack in general. Adpete (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

questionable term

I know it's in Hooper & Whyld, but I've never heard the term "frame" used in a chess context. Are there any other books that use the term? H&W don't relate "frames" to mobility so this looks like Original Research. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across it either, it's certainly an obscure term but if it's in Hooper & Whyld does that mean it qualifies for inclusion here? If this article is for every chess term a reader might come across then I guess it does. P-K3 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
What to do when one of the go-to reliable chess sources stands alone? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
It's a tertiary source, so we shouldn't be depending on it, in principle. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
So do we remove? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
First let's buzz User:MinnesotanUser in case that editor isn't already reading this. Then, if that editor, or somebody else reading this, knows of some normal chess source that uses this term, then we have an excuse to keep it. If nobody knows of such a source, then maybe we have an excuse to remove. This is an odd problem to have. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
These are all fair points, most of which I had in mind when making the edit. Although the term is obscure, what I had in mind with the edit was to cite a specific notion of piece-mobility, to eventually expand upon same (with graphics) in each pieces' article. It helps that these specific notions of piece-movement-by-frame are explicitly cited in H&W's entries on each piece, but to be sure, this is only the one source, and I also appreciate the no-OR concern. It would be incumbent on me or others to find buttressing sources and edit accordingly. I agree that not every buzzword needs an item in this article (witness very recent revisions), but still I'm favorable to this term since it has at least one source, and is conceptually helpful.
If someone wants to delete, no sweat, but my suspicion (and inclination) is that the concept is helpful enough to the encyclopedia's chess articles to warrant inclusion, and that other sources can be found buttressing same, hence Being Bold despite not having all the answers. I have come across the "heatmap" concept in at least one less-reputable chess page, illustrating the concept. For the record, I will try to find other sources relating to the "frame" concept (whether using that word or not), and if the entry is deleted I might like to revist at this or a related talk if I can suggest improvement. MinnesotanUser (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Much-used terms without definitions

"Rating" is all over the place but has no definition.

"Rank" is also all over the place, with two usages and a single definition: concerning location on the board; and no definition with respect to ratings.

I think those definitions' presence would improve the article, but I don't want to do the work of formulating them. So I invite you to undertake it! Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Rating is already covered under Elo rating system so I added see also entries for "rating" and "FIDE rating". "Ranking" or "rank" in the sense of the ranking just has its ordinary meaning in English. Maybe someone would like to add an entry for it but some care would be required because the rating used for the ranking is context dependent. For world rankings normally FIDE ratings will be used, but a USCF ranking would use USCF ratings. And FIDE publishes national ranks as well using FIDE ratings, so again context. But I think people can figure that out when they encounter it outside wikipedia without much help from this glossary. Quale (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Botez Gambit

This is silly. She's not a particularly strong player, just a good looking social media star. It's questionable whether she should even have an article. There is no chess book which includes the term "Botez Gambit". Bottom line: "Botez Gambit" is not an established chess term. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a jocular usage, and there is an inherent contradiction in including a jocular usage in a glossary (this also applies to "Harry" and some other entries in this glossary). If you have to explain a joke, the joke is ruined. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion about the entries in question, but I'm quite positive about having "jokes" explained to me. If I don't understand the joke, it hasn't worked - the explanation doesn't ruin the joke, but does expand my knowledge that little bit. W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It's a twitch meme which will quickly date. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe we need a List of Twitch memes about chess or the like. (Not sure if I'm serious about that suggestion, and sourcing would be tricky.) Quale (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe this is a case where Wikipedians resist change, and chess used to be a very staid, conservative and slow-changing game. But I got news for you - thanks to the Netflix show and the pandemic, chess media has exploded. And chess vernacular with it. Where in our policies does it say we should exclude otherwise well-sourced notable content? The "this will blow over so let's not include it" argument amounts to CRYSTALBALL. I say include it now, and if it turns out to be nonnotable in the future, remove it then. It is certainly notable now. CapnZapp (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
And nope to the effort to relegate certain terms to some kind of second class article. There is no need for a separate article. This is not just a "twitch meme" any longer, if it were I would not have chosen it for inclusion, if for only the simple reason I'm not on Twitch so I have no idea what the kids over there are up to. There are lots of actively used chess terms not on this page; I just chose an obvious (and well-sourced) one there no good argument to exclude as a first case. CapnZapp (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the point of WP:SUSTAINED is that Wikipedians are supposed to resist change, right?
After 100 years or so it's pretty safe for us to have an article about the Tarrasch Trap. But it is reasonable to suspect that the joke about Botez blundering her queen will go stale within a few years. If it doesn't, then, fine, we can think about what to do with it. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd happily see the Bongcloud Attack article deleted too. Internet memes are by definition ephereal. Nobody says "bae" anymore. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
You mean ephemeral. And you're wrong. But from here on I'm addressing the general reader and not you specifically: How do you think one of those 19th century chess opening names were created? How did they stick? In exactly the same way the "bongcloud" or "botez gambit" got their names! But somehow you cling to the outdated notion the written word is better, even though the world does not look that way any longer. Wikipedia has long been a lesser project since it turns a blind side to aspects of human culture that simply does not reach the obsolete medium we call "books". Not all aspects, mind you. In some areas, Wikipedia somehow welcomes online sources, and does so instantly - "daring" to take the "risk" of including an article even though it might (oh the horrors!) have to be deleted ten years later. I mean, it's as if they have concluded the "shame" in something being created and then deleted is perhaps the only ephemeral - and therefore insignificant - aspect of relevance here?! But apparently the subject of chess is held hostage by gatekeeper editors that labor under the delusion chess is too lofty and pure a subject to debase itself by including contemporary knowledge. Wikipedia does not wait years before including new developments in many areas, but for some reason chess is not one of them. Despite meeting every criteria, you lot still take it upon yourself to exclude sources based solely upon your personal speculation regarding what will last and what won't, throwing policy at me as if we're discussing a clear-cut policy breach... You know we aren't. I know we aren't. You know my submission would be accepted without a blink had the subject been, I dunno, rap music. And I know it. But sure, let's all pretend chess is different. More refined. Only hundred-year old dead-tree book sources are safe enough around here! Message received! CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Looking through the glossary, I see a few other entries that are inappropriate because they are jokes, rather than technical terms that need to be explained:
  • big pawn, tall pawn
  • eat
  • God
  • wood, chopping wood
Bruce leverett (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
There is genuine concern among historians that in future there will be gap in the photographic record in the digital age. Stuff doesn't stay around on the internet forever, and it has no editorial control. Besides technological formats change. Will .jpg still be around in 100 years? Books have a certain permanance about them. I can only consider CapnZapp's remarks denigrating the print medium as trolling. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Please take into consideration that trolling and showing disrespect for other editors rarely results in article improvements. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line - chess players don't care about Alexandra Botez, she's not a strong chess player, just an internet entertainer, and silly internet in-jokes do not belong in a chess glossary. "Botez Gambit" should be deleted and I'll happily put it through the RFC process if necessary. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but I have been wondering what the next step is. Is it WP:RfC? The editor apparently disagrees with WP:SUSTAINED. Where does one go from here? Bruce leverett (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on chess term

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached not to include Botez Gambit. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Should the term "Botez Gambit" be included in the article Glossary of chess? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Given that NBC News found it worth covering, it seems to be prominent enough of a meme to mention here. Cobblet (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Per Cobblet's link above, the term has found enough usage that it might be worth adding, but I'm also wary of WP:RECENTISM. Isabelle 🔔 01:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not in favour. I would say that WP:RECENTISM and the wording 'flimsy and transient' apply here. Brittle heaven (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per earlier discussion, this is a twitch meme. Per WP:10YEARS, it's unlikely that this term will become part of established chess lexicon. Alexandra Botez is an internet entertainer, and is not taken seriously by strong chess players. For a little context, as of January 2022 Botez is ranked number 23337 in the world. Still better than an average club player, but nothing even remotely notable. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am indebted to User:Cobblet for the link to the NBC News article, which in turn links to a YouTube video showing (allegedly) Botez playing the Botez Gambit 101 times [2]. I say "allegedly" because this video is unavailable, due to some copyvio issue (perhaps the background music?), but by searching YouTube for "Botez Gambit", I easily found this video [3], which shows eight minutes of Botez playing the Botez Gambit.
Evidently "Botez Gambit" is not just a joke, as I suggested in the earlier discussion in this talk page (#Botez Gambit), but it is Botez's joke, and a significant part of her promotion/marketing/public relations. By putting it in our glossary, we are directly violating WP:NOTPROMO.
I also agree with the editors who have noted recentism, or, as I mentioned in the earlier discussion, WP:SUSTAINED. Another editor complains that we are favoring printed sources over online sources, but chess articles rely heavily on online sources, and WP:SUSTAINED does not say anything about print versus online. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not a real thing, just a meme by an internet entertainer who made a YouTube video of her losing her queen several times. It is a blunder, not a gambit.--Seggallion (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New items about minority attack and opposition

The diagram and discussion of minority attack are confusing, partly because only pawns are shown. If Black plays ... cxb5, it appears he just has an extra pawn. In "real life", of course, White would either take back with a piece, or would have his pawn on a4 and take back with that pawn. In the latter case, he might then have pressure on the half-open a-file, rather than the b-file. I don't want to be too fussy about how you do this, but the apparent extra pawn needs clarification.

The opposition example, with the pawn going to the 7th rank and either stalemating the opponent or queening, is a very important one, so it is a good choice. However I remember that when I learned what the opposition is, the main example was one where the enemy king has to "give ground", e.g. white pawn on c4, king on c5, black king on c7, Black to move loses, White to move can only draw. I guess there is only room for one example here in the glossary, so I will be OK whichever one you use here. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Tried to keep bare-bones simple for the glossary, especially the minority attack is a pawn skeleton only w/o pieces, so there's "fill in the blank" implied (re recaptures etc). If I do your suggestions then they are more like mini-articles. Clear to me already minority attack demands an article so already put on the WP:CHESS article to-do list. If you're more comfortable I can remove both examples, no problem. --IHTS (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I see you've removed the diagrams, that's probably the way to go, and I like the idea of an article on the minority attack. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Sicilian

I know it's been there many years, but I think this term is better covered by the Sicilian Defence article rather than the glossary. If you include anti-Sicilian, then you have to explain what the Sicilian is too, and before you know it we're including all sorts of other opening theory variation names. Make Anti-Sicilian a redirect to the appropriate section of Sicilian Defence I reckon. We could add the cites from here so that no content is lost. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

We c/ replace the entry w/
Anti-Sicilian
 See Sicilian Defense § 2.Nf3 without 3.d4: White's third move alternatives and Sicilian Defense § White's second move alternatives.
What say you? --IHTS (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
My preference is still not to include it. Ditto "Indian Defence". They may be more generic than the usual opening names, but they're still names of openings. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_chess/Archive_3&oldid=1174049528"