Talk:Bishop (chess)

message: how easy is it to win with a King and Bishop versus a King? Kingturtle 01:43 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
: It is impossible to checkmate with a king and a bishop versus a king, even if both players cooperate to try to set up a checkmate position. --Fritzlein 23:08 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm not much of a chess player, can I say, I think the above point about the impossibility of mate with just king and bishop might be worth mentioning in the main article. I didn't know that, and it would have made more sense of the last section on end games. This may be known to serious chess players, but I'm not one of them, and other readers won't all be either. Anyway less people will know this than will know how a bishop moves. 
Stevie 203.211.96.227 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence about this in the "versus rook" section. Krakatoa (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: K+B win

message: The page has good material on several tactical and strategic motifs involving bishops.  We should probably have a brief discussion of raking bishops, and single and double bishop sacrifices. Quale (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raking bishops 

message: This is a stupid question, but I've always wondered- which way is the groove supposed to face, forwards or backwards? Darien Shields (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe it matters at all.  Unlike with knights, I've never seen anyone care which way the bishop faces.  I used to like knights facing forward, but most people like them facing to the side.  I like that now.  Some people like both knights facing left or both right, or the one on the left facing right and vice-versa, but I don't care about that.  With bishops, I don't think anyone cares.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, in the photo on the main article, I chose that angle so that the cut could be clearly seen, not to imply any particular orentation of the bishop.  Bubba73 (talk), 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which way's forwards? 

message: I think there is some kind of mistake in the fianchetto part. How can black play 3. ... g6 and 4. ... gxf6 ? It seems as if he has two g-pawns or something like that. I can't correct this since I don't know this game and so I don't know which move has to be corrected. -- 82.130.72.56 (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bubba73 (talk), 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  fianchetto error 

message: The piece's deep groove symbolizes a bishop's (or abbot's) mitre. The groove originates from the original form of the piece, an elephant (the groove represented the elephant's tusks).
Sounds like a contradiction, at least on a first read. 68.239.116.212 (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groove 

message: It is plausible that also the Arabs have taken the word from Latin Ferens the soldier who carries the flag. In Italy the word "alfiere" means the bearer of flag. During Roman Empire was called Aquilifer. So the word is returned in Italy from Arabs as in English much latin words are returned with Normans conquest. See http://www.etimo.it/?term=alfiere
--Andriolo (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The etimology of "Alfiere" 

message: I don't agree to remove those sentences because they are cited in old sources. Please, if someone has an updated and reliable source, provide it and then change the article.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some newer sources, but I think they all say the same thing.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that too, so information should be maintened other sources be cited.OTAVIO1981 (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

text: This info needs to be clarified and referenced to a reliable source.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about bishop groove 

message: This article has sources, but many of them are different pages from the same book. With many sources available for this high-profile subject, I think the article could do better. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I placed the {{t|Refimprove}} 

message: Hey, just thought I'd open a discussion on an edit I made earlier that added "his or her" to one line that previous referred to players as "his". Context:
 In the middle game, a player with only one bishop should generally place his or her pawns on squares of the color that the bishop cannot move to. This allows the player to control squares of both colors, allows the bishop to move freely among the pawns, and helps fix enemy pawns on squares on which they can be attacked by the bishop. Such a bishop is often referred to as a "good" bishop. 
It's since been reverted, and I'd like to open a discussion as I assumed the edit was in line with WP:GNL, consistent with other chess articles such as Chess and I made it in good faith without thinking it would be particularly contentious. Is there some other way we can reword the sentence to improve it? Cheers, Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think WP:GNL empowers blindly substituting "he or she"/"his or her" for "he"/"his", which is what you did & do, then yeah, I have problem w/ that - it always disimproves the text. The issue isn't specific to this article, numerous discussions have occurred at other locations including at Talk:Losing chess, WT:CHESS, WT:GGTF, WT:MOS. In this case I think "place their pawns" works okay. IHTS (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so "place their pawns" is an acceptable alternative? Happy to update that Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. (But, I do think it is a net dis-improvement to the text.) IHTS (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "place friendly pawns", because one important thing here is that you want your friendly pawns to block enemy pawns and fix them on the colour your bishop can attack. I think the use of "they" unnecessarily obscures this, if only a little. Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple & good. (But "hard"/impossible, for average WP editor.) --IHTS (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit revert

message: hey, so, yeah, the bishops' positions are listed twice. Not a big deal, but it does seem pretty redundant. My suggestion is omitting it from the intro paragraph, but I'm open to suggestions/democratic decision on this one. cheers. Electricmaster (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  positions listed twice