Talk:Chess strategy

message: Hi, A discussion on what should go in a wikipedia article on games is underway at WikiProject Games.  The current concensus (by only two users, including myself) is that strategy guides like this page should be moved over to wikibooks.  So far, I don't think there are enough particpants to make such wide reaching decisions, so I'm asking for more voices to be heard. The discussion is at the wikiproject's talk page.
Please note that I do not advocate deleting this type of article completely, but feel a chess strategy guide (and strategy guides for all games) fits better with the mission of wikibooks, so this page would be moved over there, and be linked to from the wikipedia article about chess.  Premeptive thanks for your participation. Gentgeen 08:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I think this article should be merged into Wikibooks:Chess. --ZeroOne 16:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm in favor of keeping it here. Bubba73 (talk), 04:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject, possible move to wikibooks

message: The article sayeth:
:There is another system for evaluating chess pieces, as follows:
:pawn = 3,1st captured Bishop = 11,2nd captured Bishop = 10,Knight = 10,Rook = 15,Queen = 29.
:Using this system, in a B&N trade for a R&pawn (for example, on square f7, after castling), the B&N are worth more (20 or 21 vs. 18 for R&pawn), hinting that this kind of a trade is not equal, and therefore unadvisable.  The traditional system indicates that these pairs are equal.
This system seems needlessly complicated to me, and I'm not sure it has very wide currency. Can somebody give an example of a writer who advocates it? If so, lets cite them in the article. If not, I tend to think it should be removed. The fact is that the value of pieces changes with the position, and no simple points system can take account of that. These systems are just a rough guide, and the 9/5/3/3/1 system, which is almost universal, does the job about as well as anything else. --Camembert
:I also think this secondary evaluation of piece values should be removed.  Although its author considers it refined and more accurate, such systems are argumentative by nature.  Furthermore, the writing style is probably confusing to the general reader.  Talk where rules and exceptions to rules and exceptions to the exceptions are mentioned (even if they have a basis in fact) should be avoided if at all possible in general encyclopediac articles.  --BadSanta
:: Actually that system has a lot going for it.  First, divide everything by 3.  That gives:
* pawn = 1
* knight = 3⅓
* bishop = 3⅓ or 3⅔, depending on whether or not you have two of them
* rook = 5
* queen = 9⅔.
That is in very good agreement (always within 1/6 point) with Larry Kauffman's compupter analysis showing:
* pawn = 1
* knight = 3¼
* bishop = 3¼ or 3½, depending on whether or not you have two of them
* rook = 5
* queen = 9¾.  Bubba73 (talk), 06:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Piece values (again)

message: Since when did wikipedia articles have beginning quotes? Trevor Andersen 20:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'll change it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginning quote

message: Hello - I noticed someone (71.11.170.107) has changed the relative piece value of the knight and bishop from 3 to 2.5. Other chess sites I've visited recently have the queen=9/rook=5/knight=3/bishop=3/pawn=1 valuation mentioned by Camembert above. I hesitate to revert it myself since my knowledge of chess is very rudimentary Lindisfarne 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been fixed.  That was either a vandal or someone who isn't very familiar with chess.  Also see chess piece point value.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Value of knights and bishops - 3 or 2.5?

message: The article needs to be comprehensively edited to conform to the formal tone of an encyclopedia. There should not be lines talking directly to the reader ("You should...") - rather this should be an article telling the reader about chess strategy and tactics, not teaching chess strategy and tactics. I know the difference sounds minor, but it should be reflected in the style of the prose. Themindset 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It definitely needs to be fixed.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ugh.  I took care of the 'you's The Monster 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not just the "tone" but the content.  The bulk of the page is about point values, omitting other factors, like choice of standard/nonstandard opening, black's goal for topological imbalance to make up for white's initiative, and importance of the middle.  The problem of the "tone" is merely the the article gives directions on strategy like telling you how to rather than "passively" treating of the topic. Charlespouliot 23:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually as far as I can tell this article violates WP:NOT as a game guide. If people want to write strategy guides, they should look at wikibooks, that is a more appropriate place for this article.--Crossmr 15:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal tone 

message: I think this article should be split into two different articles: "Chess strategy" and "Chess tactics". Actually, there is already article names Chess tactics. So, I would suggest the following:
* Move tactics related part into Chess tactics.
* Rename the current article to Chess strategy (now "Chess strategy" is just a redirect to this article).
* Redirect "Chess strategy and tactics" to Chess.
Any comments or objections? Andreas Kaufmann 22:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds fine to me.  The only suggestion I have is that rather than redirect to chess, do more like a dis-ambig page: "Go to chess strategy or chess tactic."  Bubba73 (talk), 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, about 1½ years ago, it was proposed that chess tactic be merged into this article.  At the time, I agreed, partly because chess tactic didn't seem to say much rhat wasn't in this article, and the article wasn't very good on its own.  Now I am in favor of the split you propose, but the current tactics article will need some work.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: The Deletion Review (DRV) for this article is Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 July 16#Chess strategy.  Bubba73 (talk), 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review 

message: The article briefly mentions some strategic elements in its first paragraph, and then devotes the remainder of its space to a rather poorly written discussion of the relative values of the pieces. The entire article should be rewritten or deleted. 75.111.197.14 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still needs a lot of work, but it shouldn't be deleted.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title 

message: I got the book Winning Chess Strategies, and I plan to work on the article guided by the topics in that book, sometime.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: excellent! this article is in pretty bad condition with mostly redundant information, when it should be one of our best. i'm excited for there to be some development! let me know if you need any help MatthewYeager 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winning Chess Strategies 

message: This article seems to be out of focus. I am in no way any master of chess, but I know that chess strategy is not primarily about piece value or chess openings. What really matters is board domination.
Unlike tactics, which focus on plotting an attack against the opponent’s pieces, strategy is about moving ones pieces to the squares where they later will have a maximum impact on the game. This is usually the same square’s from which they can attack the largest amounts of other squares on the board. The reason for this is simple. The more squares one is able to attack, the harder it gets for the opponent to safely relocate his pieces. He becomes immobilised, while ones own mobility increase. It stands to reason that the one controlling most squares will have more good opportunities in the game since the opponent will have hard to find a square to begin an attac from, or even to find a safe heaven for his pieces or to protect them, once they become the selected target of an attack.
To achieve this domination it is important to create a strong pawn skeleton without weaknesses like doubled, overworked, overstretched, isolated or backward pawns. One should also move pieces to squares from which they have the greatest mobility. Knights (that have only a short range) should be located close to the centre of the board. Bishops will prosper on open long diagonals, and rooks at open or semiopen ranks or files.
I think this article should therefor be rewritten to focus on these importante concepts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBM 72 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noted that the article needed major work last year, and last November I got the book Winning Chess Strategies with the intention of using it as a guide to rework this article.  But it seemed like a daunting task, and I haven't done it.  It is a lot easier to write about tactics than strategy.  Bubba73 (talk), 05:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic? 

message: I am in favor of the proposed merge of Control of the centre into this article.  Anyone have any input?  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, Chess strategy is 23333 bytes long and Control of the centre is 1136 bytes long for a total of 24469 bytes.  If the ideal article is no longer than 32 kbytes long, then we have about 7500 bytes to spare if the two articles are merged.  I suppose another question is "What can be written about control of the center?" regarding chess.  I'm not sure if there is that much more meaningful information to write about it.  If there is nothing more to add about "control of the center", then I agree that it should be merged into Chess strategy.  I suppose more could be written about chess strategy, but I'm not sure what.  Even if we go over 32 kbytes, it's no big deal.  There are plenty of articles longer than 32 kbytes.  H Padleckas (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 32K thing is not observed too much now - it mainly was for some very old browsers.  For now, I think it is OK to simply make the control article a section of strategy.  Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 05:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: This section seems to have been added in order to make a reference to Nimzovich's theory of overprotection, but it misses the point of OVERprotection: that a key point that is already protected is reinforced, and the overprotecting pieces gain value in their focus and association with this key point. It belittles the theory to suggest that it's just about not hanging pieces. In this sense, Nimzovich's theory of prophylaxis is closer to the mark. --mdamien  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.225.49 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defending Pieces 

message: The section on the rooks is very bad. For example it claims that what marks a rook out from a minor piece is that it is able to checkmate with a king.
The Gaon (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say that.  It says king and rook are able to "checkmate an opposing lone king".  King and minor piece cannot do that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rooks 

message: Before today, this Chess strategy article said almost nothing about castling.  I put in a few words on castling under the "King" subsubsection.  If anybody wants to take a look at it, go ahead.  Also, adding a small section summarizing the role of castling in chess strategy might be a reasonable idea.  H Padleckas (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Castling]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chess strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120116113334/http://www.chessplans.com:80/ to http://www.chessplans.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chess strategy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506002514/http://chess.about.com/od/reference/g/bldefini.htm to http://chess.about.com/od/reference/g/bldefini.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chessplans.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What does this mean?--
"A bishop always stays on squares of the color it started on, so once one of them is gone, the squares of that color become more difficult to control. When this happens, pawns moved to squares of the other color do not block the bishop, and enemy pawns directly facing them are stuck on the vulnerable color."
Say you sac or trade your dark square Bishop because it's bad and attacks only your own pawns, most of which are on dark squares.
According to the article, moving a pawn to THE OTHER COLOR (squares or pieces?) which in this case would be a WHITE SQUARE, they "do not block the Bishop" (what, the remaining white squared Bishop? YES THEY DO!) and pawns facing them are vulnerable (NO, they would be on black squares and the black Bishop is gone-- according to the article's logic)?
Help me get it?! CoachingChess (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused