Talk:Chess

FIDE Definition

Shouldn't we be using the actual FIDE acronym (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) rather than (International Chess Federation)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KID Normal Variation (talk • contribs) 02:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Western or International

@Oceanbed347: There were brief discussions of "Western", "International", "Modern", and "European" on this talk page, now at Talk:Chess/Archive 11#western chess, international chess, modern chess and Talk:Chess/Archive 11#European Chess. This was from 21 October 2021. I do not have anything to add to those discussions, but there may have been earlier discussions as well. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bruce leverett!,

Thank you for providing me with those links, I appreciate it.

I believe that calling the game a "Western game" would be unfair as it would ignore the contributions made by other cultures (persian/arab), including the fact that Chess originated in India. International chess on the other hand would be a more appropriate term as it is inclusive and accurately reflects the games long and complex history without giving the ownership of the game to one group of people.

Furthermore the term western chess is one which is almost never used. I honestly was unaware of this term until I came across it on Wiki. No one has ever asked me whether I would like to play a game of "western" chess. The game is just chess.

International chess on the other hand is a term which is frequently used, especially at the competitive level.

Since what is written at the top is only there to help differentiate the Chess page from other pages it would be better to use international chess, as it is much more commonly used and more accurately encapsulates the history of the game. The term western chess is already mentioned(along with international chess) under synonyms. I see no need why this term which is rarely used should be given preference over international chess.

I would love to hear your opinion,

If you know of any other editors could you please invite them to this discussion.

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347 I don't think Western chess Western is unfair any more than calling Japanese curry Japanese is—they're both rooted elsewhere, but were given definite form in the place whose name they bear. In terms of prominence, I've heard both, but neither of us can decide without evidence which is more common. I personally think "Western chess" and especially "Western board game" make more sense. Kaotao (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

"International chess" is the literal translation of the Chinese term for chess ("international xiangqi"), as opposed to just plain old xiangqi. From the Chinese point of view, "xiangqi" is the normal game, and "international xiangqi" is the variant. "International xiangqi" was little known in China until the late 20th century, they only started competing in Olympiads in 1978 (and defeated several Western GMs during the event, finshing 20th). Outside of China, if you just call it "chess", everybody knows what game you mean. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kaotao and MaxBrowne2!,

I have absolutely no issue with calling the modern form of the game Western chess, it is only when the entire page on Chess is introduced as a western board game. This overly simplifies the game's history and ignores contributions made by other cultures.

I think it would be better to introduce the game as a strategy board game and mention in the lede that chess in its current form is know as western chess.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of the hatnote is to help people who got to this article while reading or hearing about something else. We don't have a loftier purpose, such as teaching new vocabulary, which we do a lot of in the rest of the article.

I would dispute that "Western chess" is "almost never used". The earlier discussion (which I linked to above) cites this article, which repeatedly uses "Western chess" to distinguish chess from xiangqi. It also cites aomething where Kramnik uses "International chess" for a similar purpose (distinguishing chess from makruk), so when I was participating in that discussion, I thought that either "Western" or "international" could plausibly suit our purpose in this hatnote.

Of course, other than trying to distinguish chess from some variant or other, no one ever says "Western" or "international" chess, so in that sense, they are "almost never used". Bruce leverett (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The first time I ever heard the term "international chess" was from a Chinese workmate. Presumably "chess" for him means xiangqi. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347 "Strategy board game" would do little to clarify that the scope of the article does not include other chess-like games, such as xiangqi, which is the purpose of the disclaimer. "Western" may be better than "international" in this regard, since "international" could possibly be interpreted to include all games referred to as chess by people not familiar with the term international chess. Xiangqi is also thought to be descended from chaturanga, but it is ubiquitously referred to as Chinese, because its unique character—what makes it xiangqi—was developed in China. Thus, when comparing it to the chaturanga variant (or possibly xiangqi variant according to the article) that arose from the West, some call it "Chinese chess", even though it has other cultures in its roots. The same logic can be applied here. I don't think "western board game" is necessarily the best way of specifying what we mean by chess, but I think it's a valid one. Kaotao (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kaotao and Bruce!

All I am suggesting is that a more neutral and inclusive term like International chess, which has already been mentioned under synonyms next to western chess be used in the hatnote, instead of "a western board game". The reason for this is that "Chess" is a general page just like the one on "Curry". If you look up curry, it says that it is about a dish with spices, and under curry you have many different curries like Japanese curry. This applies to chess as well. The different variants of chess like Xiangqi and others all have their own page, just like Japanese curry. But there is only one page for chess just like for curry. To call chess a western board game in the hatnote would be similar to introducing the curry page as being about a Japanese dish.

I also disagree that the term International chess would cause confusion among readers. The term western may be better in some respects, but as the page is about chess in general, it would be better to use international chess, as it more accurately represents the history of the game and takes into account the contributions of others in addition to those of the west.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347

But there is only one page for chess just like for curry.

There are actually two—this one, and Chess (disambiguation). This page is for the Western game of chess in particular, as you can see in the lede, which refers to xiangqi as a "similar game", and in how the rules section contains no mention of any rules other than the Western ones. The purpose of the hatnote is to clarify that this article does not cover those other games, including xiangqi and chaturanga (Japanese curry too explains that the history of curry goes back to India and Britain, and it is still described as a Japanese dish), in any way other than their relation to the Western game, and thus coverage of them is limited within this article, and to lead them to the disambig if the western game in particular isn't what they want. Kaotao (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kaotao!,

The disambiguation is NOT a page and the purpose of the hatnote is NOT to help differentiate between different forms of chess but rather to separate the page from others which have the exact same name.

As for the rules, it clearly mentions that they are those of FIDE. If you were to go to the rules of chess page, you will see chess being introduced as just a strategy game(not western) and that the rules have been set by FIDE, as well as the fact that they can vary from region to region.

I totally agree with you that what we call chess now is more or less the western form of the game. Hence western chess is mentioned as a synonym alongside International chess.

I only object to the use of the term "western board game" in the hatnote. Chess, rather than being a single game, is a lineage of games which began in India. Since the page is on chess in general, it would be better to use the other synonym "International chess" instead, especially when the rules of the game have been set by FIDE, which is an international organization. Introducing chess as a western game completely ignores the contributions made by others. Western chess is already mentioned as a synonym. I don't see why the entire game should be called western. In my opinion the best way to introduce chess would be to call it a strategy board game, and this is exactly the description you get if you were to type chess into the search bar.

Let's replace "western board game" with either international chess(it's other synonym), modern chess or just strategy game.

Do you have any suggestions?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Oceanbed347 Yes, there are multiple games referred to as chess, but this article is dedicated solely towards the western game of chess. Neither FIDE, nor this article, list the rules of chaturanga, shogi, or xiangqi, because the western game alone is the focus of both FIDE and this article. Any other games mentioned here, including those in chess' lineage, are mentioned only in relation to the western game of chess. Part of the purpose of the hatnote is to clarify this, which is the entire reason why we need an adjective like "western" in the first place (the disambig page doesn't just contain pages with the name "chess", it also contains links to articles for games like xiangqi and shogi). This is what makes "western board game" a more prudent option, because "modern chess" could imply inclusion of modern games like shogi, and international could imply inclusion of all others to people less familiar with chess terms. "Western board game" is both an intuitive and accurate way of specifying the scope of this article, which does not include chaturanga similarly to how the smartphone article is not dedicated towards the rotary dial, even if it does end up covering it in relation to the smart phone. Kaotao (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

We should primarily go with what sources say. I do not know if that would indicate "Western" og "International" as a qualifier when we need to explicitly distinguish this game from other variants. However, if those two qualifiers are both common in sources, we can instead choose based on what makes most sense. The variant in question was basically settled in Southwestern Europe in the 15th century (or something like that), though certain details were settled internationally in the 20th century. To me, "Western" seems a slightly odd way to reflect this history and the current status of the variant; "International" would seem more reasobnable. Nø (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Nø!

I also very much agree. Calling it international chess would be better. Calling it western would imply the ownership of the game by one particular group of people, ignoring its origins and contributions made by other cultures. Calling chess Western would be just as wrong as calling it Indian, although it originated there. I have absolutely no objections to mentioning that the current form of the game developed in the west, and this is already mentioned in the lede. In my opinion the best way to introduce it would be to just call it a strategy board game.

What do you think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

As I indicated in the 2021 discussion, sources can be cited for both "Western chess" and "international chess". Prior to that, we had been using "the Western board game" for years, and after the 2021 flap, we went back to "Western board game" for a few more years, so at this point, it can reasonably be called the status quo. I do not see a substantial motivation to change it, but if it were changed to "international chess", that might work as well. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bruce!,

The page on Chess was created in 2002 and the "western board game" part was only added in late 2010. So for almost a decade there was no hatnote, just the disambiguation.

I think the best is to get rid of the hatnote, and if we are going to keep it, it would be better to just write "strategy board game" instead of "International chess", because that sounds a bit odd as well. Both terms by the way are included under synonyms. I do not see any reason why either of them should be at the top. The page is about the game in general, as it is played now, in its standardised form.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I completely agree that "western chess" like "International chess" is an accepted term which is in usage.

My only objection is against using "western chess" or the much worse "a western board game" to describe the entire page on chess. The same goes for International chess.

Terms like Western/International/Modern are only used when there is a "need" to distinguish the current form of the game from other variants. The page on chess is about the game in general, as it is played now, in its standardized form.

I think the best way to introduce the game would be to just call it "a strategy board game". The terms "western chess" and "International chess" have already been mentioned under synonyms.

Can we please come to some kind of consensus,

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 09:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Since international and Western are both reasonable ways to describe chess, to a large degree this is bikeshedding. But Oceanbed347 has the right idea. "International" and "Western" are not necessary or helpful in a brief description of chess. The "strategy board game" suggestion is closer, but I'm not crazy about it because it isn't really clear to me precisely what a strategy board game is. The board game page won't explain that either since "strategy" barely makes an appearance about eight sections and several screens into the body of the article. In fact the section board game#Luck, strategy, and diplomacy doesn't explain what a strategy board game is and it doesn't even use the word "strategy" once except in the section title. So, "strategy board game" isn't the best.

We're making this much too hard. The correct short description of chess is "a board game for two players". Finis. Quale (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

There's still a distinction between traditional board games, which arose organically and evolved over hundreds (even thousands) of years and have a rich cultural history, and modern commercial board games which arose in the 19th century. How about "traditional board game for two players"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

While I initially liked the succinct short description "board game for two players" (no need for "traditional", I believe), discussing the short title, we must take its purpose into consideration (WP:SHORTDESC). Most wikipedia readers will be perfectly familiar with the title "Chess", so perhaps we do not need a short description at all. If we need it, it is because there is an ambiguity or lack of clarity in the title - and that means, in my opinion, that the short title should disambiguate between different "chess" games; what else could the purpose be? Nø (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I also think that there is no need for a short description. If you look at the page's history, it was only added in late 2010, before that it was just the disambiguation. Most people know what chess is, and the terms Western/International are already mentioned under synonyms.

If we are to keep the hatnote, I think it would be better to just write "strategy board game" or "board game for two players", even the chess(disambiguation), says "two player board game", no mention of western/international. The description need not exactly correspond to what is written on the "board game" page. It is only there to give just enough information to the reader so that he/she knows what the page is about, and to help distinguish this page from other pages which also have the same name. And even those other "chess" pages clearly mention what they are about(film, magazine, poem...). As for chess variants, none of those pages are called chess, they have their own names like chaturanga, shatranj, xiangqi. And if you were to look at the disambiguation in those pages, they only mention other pages which have the same name, for example shatranj(film), and not other chess variants.

I am in favour of removing the description altogether as I believe that it serves no useful purpose.

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to Nø and Oceanbed347 for confirming that there was a sudden and unannounced shift from discussing the hatnote to discussing the short description.

I disagree that the short description is unnecessary. There are indeed people who don't know what chess is. I think the assumption underlying every Wikipedia article is that the reader may not know anything about the topic.

The old short description, "Strategy board game", looks kind of unhelpful, as explained by Quale. I think "Board game for two players" is OK. I understand the distinction being made by the word "Traditional", but the short description doesn't have to mention that. Its purpose is to appear underneath the title in the list of article titles that you see when you start typing "Chess" into the search box. It can be, and should be, pretty rudimentary. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I thought the short description was the hatnote. It is the hatnote which I think is unnecessary, and not the short description(the first line in the first paragraph). The short description is essential and I agree with everyone here that it must be included.

I apologize for the confusion, sorry!

As for what should be written in the short description, I am totally fine with "board game for two players". I only disagree with using the terms "western chess" or "international chess" to describe the game.

What do you guys think?

sorry again for the confusion.

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Bruce. I waited a while before commenting here because I don't think it's very important, but clearly I should have abstained completely because I'm part of the discussion topic confusion between the {{About}} hatnote and the short description. Regarding the hatnote, it simply points to chess (disambiguation) and I don't think it matters too much what it says. "Western chess" seems reasonable there. Regarding whether or not the article needs a short desc, well I would be perfectly happy if all shortdesc were jettisoned into the sun. But since we have them, chess does need a shortdesc because there are many things called "chess" including a well known musical, several movies, computer programs, etc. Quale (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi!,

I thought the short description referred to the first line of the first paragraph. I didn't know it was referring to the description you get when you type "chess" into the search bar.

I see that it has been changed to "traditional board game for two". I don't think "traditional" is a good way to describe the game. As "traditional" would imply something that is strongly associated with a particular culture, eg. Traditional dance.

I think "strategy board game" or "board game for two" sounds better.

It is the hatnote at the top of the page, which reads, "this is about western chess", that I think is unnecessary. Western chess and International chess are already mentioned under synonyms, just in case someone needs to know which form of the game the page is about.

Shall we remove the hatnote and change "traditional board game" to just "board game for two"?

What do you guys think?

Thank you!

Oceanbed347 (talk) 10:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

For consideration (in lieu of 'Western' or 'International'):

Western culture regards Chess as a particular game with a particular set of rules governed by an international authority (FIDE [...]). Variously known as International Chess, World Chess, Orthochess, and so on, it is, in this capacity, far too well documented to justify repetitious elaboration here. For the purposes of the present survey Chess is not 'a game' (and certainly not 'the game'), but a large family of related games, none of which is inherently superior to any other. They chiefly cover varieties of Chess which in the course of centuries have become the national games of individual countries and cultures, such as Chaturanga, Xiang-qi, Shogi, and so on. From this viewpoint, International Chess is merely the 'national' game of Europe, and may be designated Modern European Chess to distinguish it from (for example) the medieval European game, which more closely resembled Chaturanga. Other family members are historical varieties that were once the standard game of particular countries and cultures but are now no longer played [...]

  — Parlett, David (1999). "16. Conquering Kings". The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford University Press Inc. p. 276. ISBN 0-19-212998-8.

--IHTS (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"International chess" (or "international xiangqi") is the literal translation of the standard Chinese name for what we know as "chess". I first heard "international chess" from a Singaporean workmate. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

abstract strategy game

The sentence, "Chess is an abstract strategy game that involves no hidden information and no elements of chance." is out of place at the beginning of the lead section. It doesn't convey what's notable about the topic; the great majority of readers will not understand most of it without clicking through the wikilinks; we don't expand on it in the remainder of the article.

I am thinking of moving it to either the end, or the beginning, of the Rules section.

Comments? Bruce leverett (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

No prob w/ me. --IHTS (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it could simply be removed. Do we cite a source for this description of chess? Quale (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Re "abstract strategy game", I doubt that needs a source, it's the obvious and self-evident game category. Re "no hidden information and no elements of chance", it wasn't my idea to include that, if memory serves that was Bruce's idea. --IHTS (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Chess is not a strategy game at all, much less an abstract one. Though it's a common myth that chess is a strategy game, it is purely a game of tactics and counting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17606-45 (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This sentence apparently has a long and twisted history. If IHTS thinks I had a hand in adding "perfect information" and/or "chance", probably he is right, not that I remember.

We link to abstract strategy game in the infobox, and it mentions chess prominently in its lead section. This is not telling us anything about chess, but clarifying the definition of abstract strategy game. So I think it's OK to keep the link in the infobox, but remove the mention in the lead paragraph of Chess.

"no hidden information" is a link to Perfect information, which mentions Chess prominently, though not in its lead section. Again, this is not telling us anything about chess, but rather, helping to introduce the concept of perfect information. We do not have any other link to Perfect information, but we do link to Solving chess in the Mathematics section, and perhaps that's close enough, especially since Solving chess mentions Perfect information early on.

"chance" is a link to Games of chance. That is a short article that mostly revolves around the fact that games of chance are sometimes, in some places, prohibited. We also mention chance in the infobox, where the value of that parameter is "none", but there is no link from the infobox to Games of chance. Also in the navboxes at the bottom, there is a category "elements of chance", which links to several chess variants.

Altogether, I think that Quale's idea of removing this sentence is good, better than my idea of moving it into the body of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I really don't care. But am perplexed how the term and description at hand, are informative to or "clarify the definition of", the term and description. (That seems backwards. They impart things re the game chess, to the reader.) --IHTS (talk)

I don't agree with "I doubt it needs a sources, it's the obvious ..." at all. If we don't have any sources that describe chess as an abstract strategy game then to my way of thinking it's obviously wrong for wikipedia to do that. It's the height of arrogance to believe that we know better how to write an encyclopedic description of chess better than other encyclopedias or reliable sources. (I'm not saying that sources writing about abstract strategy games don't list chess as an example, but the important sources are ones that are about chess. When discussing abstract strategy games chess is of major importance, but when discussing chess abstract strategy games are so minor as to be almost entirely irrelevant.) I agree with Bruce that the abstract strategy game categorization can remain in the infobox, but I think it should be excised from the lead. Its current location as the second sentence of the article is really awkward. If "abstract strategy game" is to appear in the article body then Bruce identified the appropriate place—it should be in the discussion about solving chess since perfect information is relevant there. But it definitely requires a cite if it is to appear anywhere in the article body. Quale (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that it should be sourced. But I disagree completely with your reasoning. What makes other people better qualified to describe the matter in their own words? Not a damn thing, frankly. If you believe the only contribution of value you can offer is to plagiarize other people and regurgitate their specific verbiage, then the problem is not me or anyone else being arrogant, it's that you lack self confidence. In my view, the need for a citation is based on the fact that the assertion is far from a self evident characterization of the nature of chess, and in fact is arguably false. Chess is not actually a strategy game. That's my informed position on the matter. But if a reliable source describes it that way with supporting explanation, then the information can be reasonably included here. People like myself can then contribute differing perspectives citing similarly reliable sources. The ultimate outcome is that readers will be provided better insight on the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17606-45 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

You're an idiot, but thanks for your contribution. Quale (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

That reply says far more about you than it does anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17812-85 (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Choosing colors

@MaxBrowne2: I realize that the advice about choosing colors by one player putting pawns in his hands and the other player choosing a hand is a beloved old chestnut. But the {{cn}} tag has been on it for a year now, and I don't see any real prospect of finding a reliable source for it. Perhaps if we could informally cite some move or TV show in which the characters do that, it would substitute for a regular citation, but I don't think they do that even in Queen's Gambit, because most of the games in that show are tournament games. Perhaps this topic is just not encyclopedic? Thanks to Jedzz for bringing this up. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The 19th century rules usually just said that both the first move and the colours should be decided "by lot". I believe the 1880 American chess congress was the first tournament in which the standard "White moves first" was adopted. It was a double round robin and I think the player who got to play white first was decided randomly? If so the "hidden pawn" method would have been a simple and convenient method to do it, requiring no coin toss or rocks-scissors-paper game. While it is certainly traditional to choose colours by the "hidden pawn" method in casual games, finding reliable sources that describe it is frustratingly difficult. I've found a few books that describe it but they are from self-publishing companies like xlibris. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The book of the 5th American Chess Congress says only that the player to move first is decided "by lot", without specifying any particular method. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

OK I made some more edits. Bottom line is that the rules of chess have nothing to say about it other than that in some cases colours may be decided "by lot"; what form that takes is up to the players or organizers. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

"Chesse" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chesse has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 31 § Chesse until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Specifying the inability to "undo" castling

In the castling section of the page, the associated animation displays the two kings castling without any pawns blocking, and then "undoing" the move. While it has been stated that the king cannot castle if it goes through a check, there is no explicit statement that states that once the king has castled, that specific move cannot be undone. Would it be worth adding that for clarification? RexplayzzG (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2026

Change 8x8 grid to 8x9 grid HJLG (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. meamemg (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Notation isn't one of the "rules"

It isn't even required in tournaments with fast time controls. The rules have already been explained with minimal references to notation. There are other aspects of recent edits/reorganizations that also didn't look like improvements to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. We must carefully examine all the recent changes. Some are benign such as using Colle System instead of the Reti as an example of a more positional opening (arguably this is better as many lines of the Reti are tactical), others are change for the sake of change and are slightly worse such as using the Najdorf as an example of a sharp opening in place of the Latvian Gambit (not all lines of the Najdorf are tactical (eg lines where Black plays e5 and play revolves around the hole at d5) but the Latvian is generally rather tactical). Some recent changes might be good, others are at least a little worse. On the plus side, and this is a very big plus, each edit seem localized to specific things with edit summaries that explain the intent of the change. That's hugely helpful. Quale (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Problems & Studies doesn't belong under heading "Culture", duh. --IHTS (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Some of the recent reorganization is bad. Introduction of the Chess#Culture section was a mistake. The Chess#Media section is empty (no text) and contains only one subsection, a clear sign of a mistake in organization. The Chess#Modes of play section is another mistake, and again has the terrible empty section with no text for the sole purpose of holding a single subsection. Nesting everything into single subsection sections is not good organization. You should never have two consecutive section headers with no text between, but inexperienced editors gonna do stuff like that. Splitting and renaming the Gameplay section to Chess#Phases and Chess#Elements is another loser. It's worth going over every change to see if there was any useful stuff (I think there are a few tweaks to the cite formatting which are good), but probably we should revert to the earlier and superior organization. Quale (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Revert. (I backed out "Elements" after realizing there's no fixing this.) --IHTS (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I hope we don't get too many more "improvements". OK I didn't mind the bot on the citations. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I hate the whole "competitive play" concept, which isn't even really supported by the USCF source. All chess is competitive. The "modes of play" thing is sucky too. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that all games are "competitive", but I hear that word a lot when people mean "organized", in regard to games. I don't know if this misuse of the word is as common in other countries as it is in the U.S.

I also agree that "modes of play" is not something I am happy about, for the opposite reason: I never hear it called that. Also, grouping OTB, online, computer, and Handicaps together is problematic. The grouping that seems important enough to talk about is OTB vs. correspondence vs. online-using-server. Handicaps goes somewhere else, and computer chess goes somewhere else, can't think about that right now because it's too late at night.

Thanks for trying to keep up with the Article for Improvement stuff, I have just been too busy with other things, otherwise I would love to jump on this. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

A "mode of play" section ought to include correspondence chess, which has a rich history. The article should cover it more in general. All of these "modes of play" are better with their own sections rather than a "supersection" called "modes of play". Also computer chess is not a "mode of play", most people use them for analysis rather than as opponents. I suspect that the editor who added the term "modes of play" comes from a gamer background, they often talk about "modes" in the gamer world, but not really in the chess world. Similarly problems and studies don't belong under "theory", they're their own thing.

I expressed my concerns before this was even made an "Article for improvement", inexperienced and inexpert editors making bad edits, and this is exactly what has happened. Maybe just wait for he storm to pass and decide what changes we want to keep at the end of the week. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if somewhat better words are findable (e.g. "venues" instead of "modes"), this impulse for collectivization is artificial & misguided. ("Strategy" & "Tactics" were fine under "Gameplay", now under "Theory"?! This doesn't mess w/ Chess theory?! "Problems and Studies" are definitively not "Theory". And the editsum premise Adding theory to media since nobody is reading a book during a game is contradicted by the rules of correspondence play. The proposed changes are too dysfunctional at this point to even think about.) --IHTS (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The bot edit adding all that archive stuff was a good one. So were Aaron Liu's, backing out a lot of bad changes. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, but some other chgs remain. Good luck to you & Bruce, I'm out. --IHTS (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually what used to be the lead paragraph of the section called "theory" should probably be its own section called "Chess literature". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the content of the old Theory section didn't live up to its billing as it only discussed chess literature. In fact it included all literature about chess as a whole and not just chess theory literature, so I wasn't completely surprised when a recent edit moved it to a different section. A change was warranted, but that wasn't the right change. We can fix it when the dust settles. Quale (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Why are none of the editors trying to improve the article coming to the Talk Page?

Just an observation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Because the Improvement Project communiqué was never designed to elicit conviction? --IHTS (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Some people just don't like discussing. I've met people that intentionally avoid talk pages to avoid being verbally abused. Dayshade (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

This point holds some water. I read a few of the comments and definitely felt unwelcome as a new editor lol with some ad hominem being thrown my way. I read the most definitely warranted criticism on my edits, but I only avoided commenting for a few days because of a few unwarranted personal attacks. Chuddite (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, try to not to take it personally. I've gotten berated by MaxBrowne2 countless times now; he at least has the article's best interests at heart. Dayshade (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chuddite While I definitely see some criticism of your edits, and it hasn't always been diplomatic, I don't see any actual personal attacks on you. Wikipedia is definitely tougher for new editors than it used to be, with so many policies and guidelines to learn, and impatient experienced editors. Well-established high importance articles on specialist topics are a challenge for even experienced editors to work on - that's why I didn't like this being selected as an "article for improvement" with an open invitation to all editors to work on it regardless of experience or subject matter knowledge. As for contentious articles about stuff like Israel and Jeffrey Epstein, I'm scared to even change a punctuation mark. Maybe the best way to start out is to do WP:GNOME edits, small uncontroversial incremental improvements (and even then expect to be reverted sometimes). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been doing mostly gnome edits, mainly working on tournaments/GMs. I generally edit whatever I'm interested in. I only touched this page out of inexperience/interest in the subject matter. Chuddite (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

To add further, I am not interested in attention (which I doubt is the implication), I explicitly took the invitation from the "article for improvement" badge. Regarding my comments on personal attacks, characterization of editors as opposed to edits goes beyond diplomatic into the personal realm. My first edits were all gnome edits mainly tweaking flags and adding information on tournament results, and those are mainly what I spend my time on. Chuddite (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Organization

@MaxBrowne2 Could you dive into your edits on 8 July more? I've read the edit summaries but I don't get it. These edits have sprawled out the table-of-contents, making the article much harder to navigate.

To me, chess literature is about analyzing the game, problems and studies are about analyzing the game, and "Theory" doesn't have to literally refer to Chess theory as it is also and more commonly (MOS:JARGON) defined as analysis. Though I couldn't find a dictionary entry saying so, so how about going back to grouping those under a big heading but call it "Analysis" instead of "Theory"?

"Modes of play" is also a commonly-understandable phrase and I don't see why being a part of "gamer culture" (a claim I'd dispute, by the way. In video games "modes" is pretty much just difficulty level.) makes it unsuitable as a heading. What means simply "ways the game can be played" seems perfect for an encyclopedia to me, and again, I think we should make articles more understandable for all readers. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not Max, but I have some thoughts about the hierarchical, nested organization that you prefer compared to the flatter organization that the article has had previously. I like a hierarchical presentation for some topics that decompose nicely that way, but I don't think it works well for this article. I also don't think that the nesting makes the article easier to navigate. For one, the nesting introduces new section headers so there are more sections to navigate than with flat organization. In this article I prefer the flatter organization it had. Specifically for theory and compositions, I don't see how putting them under the same parent section would make the article easier to navigate. Ironically, in one place that the article had a nice hierarchical organization it was destroyed by the recent edits. Previously the former Gameplay section neatly contained Theory, Strategy, Tactics, and the game phases (Opening, Middlegame and Endgame). Recent changes have made this so much worse. The current Chess#Theory section is empty, no text and just a link. (Hint: if your edit puts two consecutive section headers adjacent to each other with no text between, you're doing it wrong.) This is just so bad it's clear that some of the recent editors lack experience both in editing the encyclopedia and in general good writing. I suspect soon we will put things back much the way they were. Quale (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

My plan is to itemize all the changes at the end of the week, then we can decide which were actually improvements that we want to keep, which need to be reverted or otherwise changed, and which are neutral (e.g. "End of the game" vs "Result" header, what difference does it make?). I don't like the "modes of play" section. "Computer chess" isn't really a "mode of play", most people don't use engines as opponents, they use them for analysis. Problems and studies are an esoteric field which are more about artistic effect than improving your chess. They're really their own thing, rather than a part of "theory". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are competitions re problem solving, and problem composition, that give prizes and draw hundreds, who'd be perplexed seeing the recent categorizations. List of chess variants used to have "flat" navigable organization, after someone insisted on complicating it w/ excessive nesting and over-thinking, I never went back there. --IHTS (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You have a great point with Computer chess. I agree it should be moved out, probably between "Analysis" and "Ways to play".

Knight's tour being "artistic effect" (of little practical utility) doesn't stop it from being analysis. Same goes for problems and studies. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Quite aside from the questions of organization, “mode of play” is not a self-explanatory term, and it is not widely used among chess players. We should not be making up new technical terms to write an encyclopedia article. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Chess has a well-developed literature, far more extensive than for any other game, so there is no reason to make up eccentric terminology to describe it. Quale (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing of the two I'm trying to combat is exactly MOS:JARGON, using words only those who've read chess literature would understand on an article written for far more common people than just chess aficionados. "Mode" isn't eccentric either. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

The Glossary of chess explains terms used in mainspace chess articles. (Same as any other of the numerous WP glossaries.) --IHTS (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:JARGON applies regardless of whether the reader can search up what the jargon means or not. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Other than the word "[chess] theory", what specific specialized words are you complaining about, specifically? --IHTS (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not see how it is not self-explanatory. "Modes" has the very common definition of "methods" or "ways". How about "Ways to play"? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, neither of those problems (jargon or strangely opaque section titles) existed before the article was "improved". So an easy solution is to go back to the way it was before. You've created a false dilemma. Quale (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I don't see that in the revision. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure. Look at the section titles before the article was "improved". Which of those section titles is difficult to understand jargon, and which of them is not understandable to someone who is not a chess afficionado? You can say, MOS:JARGON, MOS:JARGON, MOS:JARGON, I can can agree with that principle in the abstract. I'm asking you to apply it specifically to this article and explain which particular recent edits by you and others improved an issue with jargon. If there are or were jargon issues in this article you should be able to point us directly to them. I haven't seen it. Instead I've seen edits making unnecessary and irrelevant edits (changing "End of the game" to "Result", which is simply worse) or jamming unrelated things under bland headers such as "Theory". Quale (talk)

Agreed. And it s/b consistent w/ Algebraic notation (chess)#End of game. --IHTS (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Ihardlythinkso, who also asked above.

(Besides changing "Compositions" back to "Problems and studies", which we all agree with,) My argument is a little different. I was responding to MaxBrow's edit summary Problems and Studies does not belong under "theory", it's a distinct branch of chess. It is based on the understanding of "Theory" narrowly as "Chess theory", which is jargon. Chess literature is theoretical, chess problems are theoretical, and "Chess theory" is theorectical. MaxBrow also objected to "Modes of play" as "gamer culture"; I'm pointing out that it and "Ways to play" are simply common expressions, and that in the spirit of MOS:Jargon common expressions should in fact be preferred and not objected to. Regardless I'm happy to drop the first point and ask about grouping the same sections under "Analysis".

Anyways, could we go back to talking about what I asked to discuss from the start? The organization of ways chess is played under "Ways to play" and the ways chess is analyzed under "Analysis"? I never mentioned anything about "End of the game" vs. "result". It's a bit exhausting to discuss what I haven't argued. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Not about you/no one asked you to do that. The secname choice was a topic, regardless who worsened it. --IHTS (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. I want to talk about the reason I opened this talk page section, though. I want to see compelling reasons I shouldn't organize under the two parent sections I mention. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The Table of Contents by default only lists the top-level headings (or at least in skins that aren't the ones most of our readers see, it is extremely easy to browse the ToC by top-level headings). It is designed so that you can look over it, decide under which broader topic what you're looking for/interested in belongs (theory and compositions are both about analyzing the game), and skip the parts you don't want and find the parts that you want to see. Right after my edit, we had an easy-to-read 8 top sections. Now we have 13. That is a lot more; the magic number for organizing things is 7, tops. I don't see why you support organizing the former Gameplay subsections together but not anything else.

The current Chess#Theory section is empty, no text and just a link.

I dispute that this is categorically bad (oftentimes the purpose of a parent section is to simply help organize subsections) but my edit actually addressed that. I put the "Chess literature" section as the lede to that section (which happens to also be the way it was before that you look up to). It was MaxBrow's edit that emptied it. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation of the Magical Seven article, which is re short-term memory, not scanning a TOC in text in front of you. --IHTS (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with IHTS about 7 not being relevant here. There's no need to memorize the top level sections, you simply read them. I haven't paid any attention to my Wikipedia skin in years but I see all levels of the TOC expanded by default. Adding additional parent sections makes the TOC longer for me, but I can't speak for the experience of others. On mobile it's actually the opposite problem. On my phone I don't get a TOC but the sections default to collapsed. That's great since you can scroll quickly through an article and tap the section of interest to read it. Except when you nest the sections using a strange organization that puts things in unexpected places. Then to find what you want you have to start expanding things randomly. Quale (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Miller's Law also applies to working memory—which was only differentiated from short-term memory decades after his article was published—and working memory is what you use to navigate a ToC. (c.f. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two § The "magical number 7" and working memory capacity or Working memory § Capacity). Working memory is what you use to read.

You only need to expand things randomly if the parent headings seem unrelated to what you're trying to find. Could you make the argument that the organization right after my edit puts things in unexpected places?

Adding additional parent sections makes the TOC longer for me

As I mentioned, that doesn't necessarily mean it becomes harder to navigate if the amount of unindented/top-level items is decreased. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's simply a false claim when applied to searching a list such as a TOC. Memory required to sequentially search a list is very small. Examine each entry in turn. Either it's what you want or it isn't and you move to the next item. No history is required, you need only remember two items, what you're looking for and your current location in the list. I agree that there is some number of top level sections that is undesirably large, but I don't think that number is as small as 8. In July the article had 13 top level sections (not counting the standard end matter such as See also, Notes, References, External links, etc.), a number that I don't consider excessive for a large topic. I understand that other editors disagree. I didn't look closely at recent history to pinpoint the version with the greatest consolidation, but I did see it got down to 9 items at the cost of gravely misplacing some sections such as putting Compositions under Culture (?!). (This directly undercuts the claim that reducing the number of top level sections doesn't impede navigation—how is the reader expected to know to look for chess composition under Culture?) And then there was the bizarre rename of the "Organized competition" section to "Competitive chess". This didn't reduce the number of top level sections and I have no idea what that was about. Since chess is a non-cooperative two-player game it's basically always competitive. Chess compositions are often solved by individuals, but even problem solving can be competitive (see World Championship of Chess Composition.) It's just the kind of random strangeness that happens when a well-developed article gets sniped by drive-by editors. Quale (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Chess literature" might be an appropriate subject for a spinoff article. We could give a history, mentioning all the important early works like Lucena, Damiano, Ruy Lopez, Greco, the Italians, Philidor, Sarratt, Staunton etc, right up to important modern(ish) works like 60 Memorable Games (Beware recentism). Chess libraries, List of chess books and List of chess periodicals can then be under "see also" in the new article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Greetings. I don't quite understand why MaxBrowne2 is receiving credit for the bad edits that were mine. I would like to address a few of the following points. First, I see that the reorganizations I made to the article are favored by an incredibly tiny minority of people. I did not make these as a "drive-by" editor as Quale was implying. First and foremost, I read the article over a few times and I have been interacting with the chess world and its media for a while now. In my opinion, the biggest mistake I made was making ambitious edits that were not discrete and well annotated. Additionally, I was drafting and planning on adding significant prose to follow up on the edits, but I saw that they were largely unpopular and mostly undone which sort of prevented that in my opinion. Further addressing Quale, I think some of the comments made by yourself are not in the spirit of Wikipedia, which I am incredibly new to so this should be taken with a grain of salt. I think your point on myself lacking experience in good writing is categorically a personal attack. I don't understand how I could address this, do I need to post several of my academic works to show that I have experience in producing decent writing? Saying that the editor who made those edits has zero experience in good writing is incredibly condescending and unnecessarily rude. Saying that I made a few bad edits is of course completely acceptable, and I welcome and encourage any and all criticism as my end goal is improve the article as it is for the rest of you. My first edits to Wikipedia were on Aleksandr Shimanov, Lazaro Bruzon Batista, and the Tata Steel Chess Tournament 2026 where Quale helped me resolve a dispute. I only edit on topics that I am interested in. I do not edit for the sake of doing whatever. Regarding the content of the article that I changed, I engaged in the nesting as I believed that undue prominence was given to topics like handicaps which are incredibly rare and unpopular nowadays at the top level, unlike the times when Philidor played matches down an f-pawn. I have taken in and hopefully understood most of the reasons why the changes were reverted, so I see little reason for myself to expend energy and time on defending or explaining them. I plan on revisiting this article when I have developed much more experience with Wikipedia. I have developed my experience largely through making edits in accordance with all of the guidelines/guidance pages that Wikipedia offers, and making mistakes which I hope to correct. My sincerest apologies for making poor edits. Chuddite (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

"Analysis" section

Would we kindly get to the changes I opened this section to talk about? Surely there's other places you can complain about "End of the game" vs. "Result", "Organized competition" vs. "Competitive chess", Chess problems under "Culture" (we don't even have a Culture section anymore), or the lack of an article for Chess literature. Isn't that everything the section above was about? I have no idea who you're talking to when you say these things. I have never argued anything about these things.

I'll cut what I've said down to just one thing: the "Analysis" heading I propose—namely, renaming the big "Theory" section to "Analysis" (as all of it is about ways Chess is analyzed), putting "Problems and studies" under it at the end, and putting the "Chess literature" section's contents as the "lede" to this "Analysis" section. Basically, how the "Theory" section looks like in this revision but make it named "Analysis" instead (and probably link the first occurrence of "Chess theory" rather than saying it is the main article for "Analysis"). Could we discuss that? Otherwise I'll assume that there is no opposition. I'll also propose putting "Handicaps" under "Rules" since "Time controls" is also there. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The proposals you made seem like a great idea as all works of chess come from chess analysis. My original intention with culture was cover everything that was made about the game, including game collections that turned into books, opening theory, compositions, etc. Analysis seems like the perfect word to cover what I was intending. I think handicaps and time controls should belong in rules as well. Regarding computer chess and correspondence chess, I think the possibility of juxtaposing them to tournament chess and internet chess is something that should be explored. Regarding your confusion over some of my other comments, I had no intention of referencing yourself or really anyone in particular. I was merely attempting to explain myself and my good faith intentions which I believe were marred by Quale's ad hominem. I apologize about that being unclear. Chuddite (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Chess jargon as it is generally used is, of course, idiosyncratic and full of historical accidents. Why is "Theory" called "Theory"? It doesn't make sense; it's closer to the opposite, something like "Praxis". But this is why we have to adhere so closely, in this article, to the jargon that is in general use. We are teaching vocabulary as much as anything. Problems and studies are not generally referred to as "analysis", so even if we had a section called "Analysis", problems and studies would not be in it. Nor are they generally called "theory". Likewise for teaching readers what "opening", "middlegame", and "endgame" are, or teaching them what "strategy" and "tactics" are. It may make perfect sense to you to call these things "analysis" or "theory", but they don't go by those names in the thousands of books, magazines, and websites about chess, so if we call them by those names, readers will notice the difference, and it is Wikipedia, not the books, magazines, and websites, that will come off looking bad. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

"Gameplay" isn't a Chess jargon term in general use either, to my knowledge. It is only a phrase in common use as much as "Analysis" is. I don't see anything I'd put under "Analysis" under the "Gameplay" name in the thousands of books, magazines, and websites about chess. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Analysis is a terrible section title that would serve no purpose in this article. Criminy. To make suggestions like that you really need more familiarity with the subject matter. Quale (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain why it is terrible? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Bruce explained some problems with it. There are so many that I won't be able to mention them all, but I'll say a few things. The first thing to remember, is even with MOS:JARGON in mind, you have to be very careful when you use jargon terminology in the article even when you don't intend the jargon meaning. "Analysis" has a specific jargon meaning in chess, and an attempt to use it with a different meaning in this article will be confusing and bad. I'll write more about the jargon meaning of analysis in chess below.

A section titled "Analysis" about ways chess is analyzed is already a mistake. I think it's intended to be about chess analysis, in other words, analysis of chess play. But the title "analysis" is very broad and ambiguous and would apply just as well to analysis of chess in a larger context, for example how chess compares to other board games or influenced the history of board games, or the ways that people have compared chess to war gaming or use for military training, or analysis of the cultural and historical influences of chess. That could perhaps be repaired by using a more specific title such as "Chess analysis", but the other problems remain. There's no need to rename "Theory" to "Analysis" because Theory was itself a bad rename of "Gameplay" and gameplay is a better section title than analysis or theory. It's back to gameplay now anyway.

Problems and studies are not chess analysis. Chess problems actually involve calculation, which is distinct skill from analysis. Calculation involves determining a sequence of moves. Analysis requires assessing the relative merits of a position. This might seem to not be different if you don't play chess, but it's important for an encyclopedia to get these things right. If you look at chess problem you will see that chess problems are generally divorced from practical chess play. Many types of chess problem are completely removed from practical play, such as those using fairy chess pieces and rules, helpmates, selfmates, series movers, retrograde analysis, etc. There's no chess analysis involved in solving most chess problems as there is no analysis which side has a positional advantage (better pawn structure, more space, greater mobility, king safety, etc.). Chess problems are varied and serve multiple purposes. Usually problems are judged on aesthetics and have little to no connection with regular game, but tactical puzzles can be used for training and some endgame studies are important for theory. Because chess problems are not one thing, putting them in their own section is the only sensible thing. They are too broad to fit in an Analysis or Theory section, but a small but significant set of problems are important to practical play so problems also don't fit under Culture or Aesthetics either.

This is not a problem of your making, but chess literature was recently put in a new Theory subsection of Gameplay and that isn't really right either. First, chess literature is not all about chess theory and all works of chess do not come from chess analysis. It is not even approximately true that all works of chess come from analysis. Chess literature includes a lot of history of chess and chess players and that ain't theory. It also includes poetry, and although most mentions of chess in poetry are "chess in literature" rather than "chess literature", there is also chess poetry that is really chess books with poetry rather than poetry books with chess. There are also chess joke books. I might be the only one here old enough to have greatly enjoyed The Fireside Book of Chess (Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld, 1966), but it isn't unique. I think most Wikipedia chess editors are avid players and have a strong focus on practical gameplay. This leads to some of the other important aspects of chess (eg chess history, chess in culture) to be less emphasized, and equating chess literature with chess theory is a mistake born of this. Currently the chess literature section is too short to stand on its own, but unless someone comes up with something much better than Theory then I think it belongs in its own section. I know that isn't what you want. Quale (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I said in another thread, Chess literature would be a good subject for a separate article. We could go into the history, write about the different kinds of books out there, mention the major magazines and journals. The chess literature section in this article could then be written in summary style. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I think, then, the section could be called "Calculation" instead. All of the subsections would be related to sequences of moves and the heading's meaning is quite easy for someone uhacquainted to guess. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

And people unfamiliar with chess do not understand a section called "Gameplay"? I'm afraid I find the suggestion that this article should have a section called Calculation instead of Gameplay so obviously bad that I can't really engage with it. "All of the subsections related to sequence of moves" is just not a thing that the real world uses to organize study or encyclopedic discussion of chess. This idea is just so strange. I really don't understand what problem you think this would solve. Quale (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Forget "Analysis" and "Calculation", those are invisible mental processes so who can really be sure they're even a thing? But we can witness players pouring intensely over board positions with their eyes, so "Eyeballing" has to be the perfect NPOV choice! (We might need a disclaimer re Literature, 'cause eyeballing is involved there too; or we might skip the disclaimer by simply putting Literature under Eyeballing.) Note that "Touching/Feeling" w/ be a congruence for the visually impaired, so it's clear everything snaps into place w/ this improvement idea. You're welcome! <Sorry, couldn't help myself.> --IHTS (talk) 08:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

"Eyeballing" sounds a bit too colloquial to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh don't you be another wet blanket on an obvious improvement. --IHTS (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I never suggested people don't understand the heading "Gameplay"; I've been arguing against the strongest versions of your arguments, so I would encourage you to do the same. "Gameplay" doesn't include "Problems and studies" and implies that it should include "Rules". The area of the article that would be covered by this "Calculation" section is likely of interest to a similar group of people browsing. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Gameplay could include Rules, but the organization the article had (and I think has again) is clear. Every one of your suggestions has fatal flaws. "Calculation" is not a good heading for phases of the game since they involve analysis, especially the middlegame. (The endgame tends more to calculation.) You could instead try a section called "Calculation and analysis", but aside from being unnatural and awkward it runs into the ultimate problem—your goal is not a worthy goal. It is an unfixable mistake to jam chess problems in the same section as phases of the game because problems have no connection whatsoever to the opening. (Chess problem connections to the middlegame and endgame are impossibly weak as well.) You are trying to combine two things that are not related except that they are both part of chess. "Things related to sequences of chess moves" is an utterly moronic way to try to organize anything about chess. I thought this problem was caused by a lack of chess knowledge, but now I think it is perhaps a broader issue of inability to discern important distinguishing characteristics from trivial surface details. Putting chess problems in the same section as the phases of the game is a complete nonstarter, and your continuing insistence that the article should do this because they are both sequences of moves is mind boggling.

I am more sympathetic to attempts to put "Online chess", "Computer chess", and "Chess in public spaces" under a parent section. The difficulty is finding a good section title. "Modes of play" was not it, and I don't have any good ideas of my own. (If you asked a chess player, "what is your mode of play?", they wouldn't have any idea what you were talking about.)

Ultimately I think the idea that the article would be better if it had 7 top level sections instead of 12 is simply misguided. Looking at music, a subject that chess is sometimes compared to, I see the music article also has 12 top level sections. I think the music article is well organized and doesn't need to be reorganized to reduce the number of top level sections. In fact I think the music article is organized a little better than this chess article is, which does mean that this article can be improved. But "Analysis" (or "Calculation") and "Modes of play" are not improvements. (Please, please, please do not go to Talk:music and tell the music editors that their article has too many sections. I do not intend to export my troubles to innocents.) Quale (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how midgame is analysis instead of calculation? At this point I think we should put this to RfC.

I did propose "Ways to play". We could also do "Places to play", "Setting of play", though I agree the last one is weird.

The music article has 12 top sections because it has more subheadings too. It simply offers way more breadth than the Chess article, so I think it absurd that Chess is spread as flat as Music. It's aiming at a housefly with a cannon. You can see that Music in fact has the structure that I want, as most headings have quite a few subheadings under. It's vertical. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Calculation and analysis go hand in hand in chess, but analysis has greater importance in middlegames because it is usually not possible to calculate a middlegame to checkmate. Judgment is required to render an opinion on a middlegame position as positional considerations (space, pawn structure, king safety, etc.) are important. This mostly goes away in the endgame and calculation is a larger part of the evaluation. But it mostly doesn't matter for organization of this article. Opening, middlegame, and endgame are obviously related things and it's clear that they should be described in the same part of the article. Chess problems are not like the opening, middlegame, or endgame and they do not belong in the same section as the phases of the game. Chess problems are not a phase of the game. You are welcome of course to start an RFC on this or anything else.

"Ways to play" is well motivated, although I don't think it's perfect as the language includes unrelated things. (For example, online chess, blindfold chess, odds chess, and chess variants). I'm trying to remember now if "Online chess" and "Computer chess" were intended to be subsections of the same section. This poses a difficulty because online chess and computer chess are different things. Online chess is a very popular way that people play with other people, and today computer chess is almost exclusively computers playing against computers, or people directing computers to analyze.

I think that your observation that the music article sections form a bushier tree and the chess article organization doesn't branch deeply is off base. When I look at music, I see four sections with no subsections: music#Etymology and terminology, music#Philosophy, music#Media and technology, and music#Therapy. The chess article currently has six sections with no subsections. You could say, OMG, chess has 50% more top level sections with no subsections, but really it's only two more. Not a big deal in my opinion. This number could be reduced easily by introducing some subsections into a couple of the baren parent sections but I don't think that would improve the article. Quale (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Page Improvement

Hi! I am a new editor, and recently I made some large sweeping edits to this page. I saw that they all got undone, and I take no offense to this whatsoever. I am trying to learn about why they were flawed. I saw that the article is currently marked as a target of improvement, and I tried to model the article after the one on Go.

The only thing I want to say about the current format is that I believe some things take such strong precedence in the article such as handicaps standing as prominently as history, a scant amount of words to cover the ever large body of literature, and in some abstract sense a lack of flow. I'm currently drafting something for literature and other forms of media. - Chuddite (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI, small, discrete edits are easier for others to review, and new threads should be added to the bottom of a talk page for consistency. —ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Chuddite: Some of your edits were changing names of sections and reorganizing. Some of these ideas are discussed in the above conversation, #Organization. It appears that another editor has been blamed for them. If you could explain your reorganization ideas more fully in that conversation, or in this one, it might clear the air. Thanks! Bruce leverett (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

MaxBrow reverted many of Chuddite's changes. I think the edits were correctly attributed. Sorry if it sounded like I said MaxBrow made Chuddite's changes. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I may have misread things in my attempt to catch up with this conversation after a long weekend. It looked to me as if people were complaining to you about changes that had actually been made by Chuddite, thus I said "... another editor had been blamed for them." But I'm happy to drop that if it was an incorrect observation. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

FIDE ratings

@MaxBrowne2: What is the source for the claim that until recently only international tournaments could be rated by FIDE? Reading that prompted me to think about rated events I played in during the early 1980's, because I was in several "futurity" tournaments, which were specifically organized to get ratings for local players. I thought perhaps some of them had no foreign players, but I can't clearly remember. Also, I would assume a rule like that would have prevented the U.S. championships from being rated, too, but I am sure I was not paying attention back then to whether or not those championships were FIDE rated. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I distinctly remember reading that the USSR championship was not FIDE rated, I'll see what I can find. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

ok it seems I got it wrong. Originally there was a minimum rating of 2200 on the FIDE list, so most amateur tournaments would not have qualified. Also, national federations may or may not have submitted a tournament for rating. I'll revise my text. FIDE adopted a specific regulation in 1982 which confirmed their current practice. The difference today is that the rating floor is now 1200. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

They've actually raised the floor back up to 1400 and done a few other tweaks. What happened is that a lot of junior players entered the list, and of course they were almost always underrated. As established players lost rating points to rising juniors, they in turn became underrated and took rating points off higher rated players. It had a knock-on effect causing widespread rating deflation all the way up to the top of the list. The original rating list was never designed for players outside the small pool of professionals. See https://blog.frbe-kbsb-ksb.be/blog/fide-ratings-revisited/ MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

From my understanding, the FIDE rating system has had negligible effort made towards preventing rating deflation unlike the US Chess Federation which has instituted rating floors up to 2200 in addition to other measures to address the issue of underrated children. Chuddite (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much for doing this research. Of course when I was active in the 1980's the rating threshold was 2200, and when I miraculously got that rating, I was happy to get invited to futurity tournaments. Next best thing to having a title. Nowadays, of course, there is no such threshold. I was curious as to when the threshold was lowered and how far, but I had no idea where to look for answers to questions like that.

Your link to regulation from 1982 appears actually to be regulations from 2009. It gives the rating floor as 1200. The blog by Vlad_G92 gives a brief history of the rating floor, but it does not look reliable, since it never even mentions 1200. I suppose that we could reliably reconstruct a history by looking at past FIDE rating regulations, but Chess doesn't need that. In any case, we should not be saying that "It has since been reduced to 1200", because according to Vlad_G92 it isn't that low any more. Perhaps "It has since been reduced" would be sufficient. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

List of changes since added to "articles for improvement"

1. Bot changed some citation formatting, removing the "df=dmy-all" parameter, formatting dates as "dd month yyyy" and adding links to the internet archive.
2. Example given of divergence between FIDE and USCF rules.
3. Mention of restricting trans-women from entering women't tournaments.
4. Though it doesn't change the display, a couple of "|" characters in chess diagrams were illogically moved to the next line.
5. Syntax of the en passant anchor for the Special pawn moves header was changed.
6. added to the end of the rules section.
7. Chess literature moved outside of the "Gameplay/Theory" section to become its own section.
8. "Gameplay" header change to "Theory".
9. Phases and subsections moved to before Strategy and Tactics.
10. Diagram caption changed from "the King's Pawn Game" to "White's King's Pawn Game".
11. Example openings changed - Reti Opening to Colle System and Latvian Gambit to Sicilian Najdorf
12. Order of sections after Gameplay/Strategy changed: was Handicaps, Problems and Studies, Chess in public spaces, Organized competition, History, Connections to other fields, Online chess, Computer chess; now Problems and Studies, Chess in public spaces, Online chess, Computer chess, Handicaps, Organized competition, History, Connections to other fields.
13. Chess in public space gallery trimmed
14. Two more tournament formats described (Scheveningen + knockout)
15. Mention of FIDE's function in maintaining an international rating list
16. Order of Categories changed.

It's possible I missed some textual changes since it's difficult to compare sections that have been moved, but I don't recall many such changes. Honestly most of the changes I've listed are neutral at best. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for compiling this, I know it's a significant amount of work. Some quick thoughts:

• Good changes: 1 (citation polish), 3 (trans-women in sports is a topic of interest), 7 (chess literature didn't belong in Gameplay or Theory)
• Bad changes: 8 (Gameplay was a better section title than Theory),
• Mixed: 11 (Colle is a better example of a quiet system than the Reti so this is an improvement but Najdorf is a worse example of a tactical system than the Latvian)
• Unclear: 6 (not sure what was added to the end of the rules section but I didn't look closely), 10 (I don't know what caption change this is)

Other thoughts:

• the current text on trans-women in chess is chicken shit ("FIDE's rules were most recently revised in 2023 to restrict entrance to women's events."), it should just explicitly say FIDE discriminates against trans-women. FIDE has plenty of company in that, and I don't want the text to say "discriminates", it should just come out and say that FIDE bars trans-women from competing in women's events and it should link transgender people in chess.
• should consider removing the Handicaps section as it really isn't very important today and is only of medium importance historically. Possibly should find a way to mention it briefly in the History section rather than giving it its own section. My hesitation is that it would be nice to maintain navigation from chess to handicap (chess) although this could be through an intermediate article, perhaps history of chess or something new in rules of chess that discusses the unofficial but de facto rules that governed play at odds. Also "Handicaps" sounds like it should discuss chess for the blind. In fact blind chess isn't in the current article at all but it should be because it's infinitely more important than playing at odds. I see blind chess is also not in {{chess}} which is yet another of the infinite ways in which that template blows chunks.
• a nit, but it would be nice to get rid of the third level header for Applied mathematics under Mathematics. We should find a way to merge it into the Mathematics parent. Steganography using chess is really not important enough to warrant space in this article but it belongs in the encyclopedia and I don't know where else to put it.

Overall I think the article is doing ok. Quale (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Transgender participation

@Sportsfan77777 Wikipedia is based on RS and not OR, so we can't just remove this sentence because something we know contradicts it. The article cited and the relevant chapter of the current handbook still plainly state, "If the gender was changed from male to female, the player has no right to participate in official FIDE events for women until a further decision is made by FIDE."

At best, based on the best relevant coverage I've found, we could add a sentence like this right after it; although I still fear it could be WP:Synth I'm willing to IAR it:

Despite this, Yosha Iglesias became the first transgender WIM after FIDE approval on 29 April 2024.

References

In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The FIDE stance is confusing and nobody seems to know what problem they're trying to fix. I think trans players basically have to prove that they've changed their gender with some kind of official documents from their federation? It all seems so intrusive and unnecessary, it's not like trans players have any biological advantage. Anyway the way forward is to clarify exactly what the policy states, using the FIDE documents and announcements, and source some of the negative reactions it has received from chess players of all genders and orientations. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like listing that many reactions might be too much for this article as opposed to Transgender people in chess. Maybe just saying that US, FR, and GB bodies announced their trans-inclusive rules still apply (which that article currently states) would be enough. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I think sourcing a few specific criticisms such as the lack of consultation with actual women or trans players would be appropriate. You can probably find sources in the Transgender people in chess article. I'd be a bit cautious about what you cite though because a lot of the headlines were overly simplistic - FIDE didn't "ban" trans players, just introduced new (and arguably discriminatory) policies around them. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The deletion of the sentence was correct. It is highly misleading to state that "as of 2023, XYZ", when (well-publicized) events have demonstrated that XYZ is no longer true. One can see from the FIDE ratings pages that Iglesias has the WIM title. FIDE awards those titles, so this means that FIDE has gone against its 2023 announcement. I have not seen any public announcements by FIDE that superseded the 2023 announcement; perhaps I missed one, or perhaps there haven't been any. But we can no longer present the 2023 announcement as if it were the present state of affairs.

Is there something else we should be saying? It is possible that a reader might come to this article after reading somewhere about Iglesias or about controversial rulings or remarks about transgender people in chess. I think the proper role for this article would be just to offer a link to Transgender people in chess or Women in chess. It is unreasonable to put things in this article that have to be carefully kept up to date, as evidently we are not capable of keeping this article up to date without a massive conversation in this talk page.

Even those other two articles are not up to date. Transgender people in chess does not even mention Iglesias's WIM title. Women in chess at least mentions it, but not using a reliable source (it cites a twitter announcement by Iglesias herself). I will try to fix these, as time permits. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett Would "by default" or "with exceptions" work? Kaotao (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, I have re-read the FIDE regs, and I may hope that I understand them better than before I started. Section B. 03. 2 just give rules for how a player can apply to change their gender. My guess is that this is not the controversial part. Section B. 03. 3, and in particular 3.2, seems to be the scratchy part: If the gender was changed from male to female, the player has no right to participate in official FIDE events for women until a further decision is made by FIDE. Such decision should be based on further analysis and shall be taken by FIDE Council not later than December 31, 2026. Note that this wording is different from the wording quoted by the CNN article. Thus, when we cite the CNN article, we are citing something that is definitely out of date.

Anyway, let's apply the present wording of the regs to, for example, Iglesias. It appears that she could not have played in the French Women's Championship "until a further decision [was] made by FIDE." Perhaps this rule was not violated. Perhaps she got FIDE to give its approval. What do I know. There wouldn't necessarily have been a public announcement of it.

This section doesn't say anything about titles, so I need not even have raised an eyebrow that she got a WIM title. One doesn't have to play in a women's event to earn a women's title.

Also, the date of December 31, 2026 in that paragraph is mysterious. Suppose someone changes gender in 2027. Are they just SOL? I suspect that further changes to this regulation are soon going to be necessary.

Altogether, I think that our attempt to paraphrase the 2023 regs was more or less a total failure. I recommend we abandon it. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that the French Chess Federation, with support from the wider international chess community, consciously flouted FIDE's ban on trans players participating in women's events and allowed Iglesias to participate, saying the ban violated their own anti-discrimination statutes. Had they implemented the ban, it may well have led to legal problems in their own country. Annemarie Sylvia Meier had already won the German women's championship in 2003 and at the time it went by without comment. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett My reading of 3.2 was that "until a further decision" meant a final decision on the rules themselves, not case by case decisions—December 31st 2026 as a specific date doesn't make sense otherwise. Also, read the start of 3.2:

The following restrictions shall be applied to a player after the change of the gender in FIDE ID

Maybe they worded it this way as a grandmother clause to have 3.2 not affect people who changed their registered gender with FIDE before the regulation was applied? Or maybe the French Women's Championship wasn't an event covered by 3.1? Kaotao (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

3.1 only includes FIDE-organized events. Most chess tournaments (including national championships) are not organized by FIDE, even if they are FIDE-rated. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, the "ban on women's titles" for trans women you just totally made up. The only sort-of-related thing mentioned in the CNN article is that trans men are banned from getting or holding women's titles (which is confirmed in the handbook). In the 2nd paragraph of 4.1, the handbook even includes instructions on how trans women can apply for women's titles, so it's definitely not banned. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777 My bad. I don't think so sometimes this happens. Kaotao (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR to cite a primary source. The FIDE handbook clearly states how trans women can play in FIDE events and get women's FIDE titles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, the statement you keep adding back was only first added yesterday and is not WP:CONSENSUS. At worst, we should go back to the old wording, which did not claim there was a ban, even if the source falsely does. (Though, I think it's ridiculous to keep it in the titles section in any form.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Re-reading the handbook, I confused the 2-year time for FIDE to make a decision as being 2 years from when a player submitted an application, not 2 years for FIDE to make a ruling on trans women in general. (Originally, it said by 2 years. Since 2 years have already passed, they mysteriously extended the deadline to December 31, 2026.)

Regardless, the point about there never being any ban on women's titles is still true. (and thus it should definitely not be mentioned in the titles section of the article.)

The point about there never being any ban outside of FIDE events is also still true. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

The extension was made in a 2024 meeting:

You have a point. How about we add a little more information that Women's events exist under the "Tournaments and matches" section and cover this there? The Polgar source also mentions that she has always advocated that girls and women play in open events, among men, and not just stick to women's tournaments only, so we could add that as well. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Tablebases

The paragraph on tablebases under 1990-present is now more up to date than the article Endgame tablebases. Also, am I the only editor who thinks this article doesn't need to have two sections on tablebases? There should be just one section, and it should leave the heavy lifting to Endgame tablebases. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe incorporate the new material into Endgame tablebases? Go ahead and edit according to your preferences. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

New York State Chess Association and Sam Loyd

It appears he composed several problems for the 1892 meeting of the NYSCA, which were later republished in various newspapers and journals. References: Ken Howard 1972, 23 problems for which original publisher is given as "New York State Chess Association" MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Shortening Association to Assoc still needs 2 lines on my display. Does it really matter if it's on two lines? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Didn't know that. (I've reverted.) You must be using a diff font than Ariel, and/or diff pt sz. It doesn't matter if vertical space awkwardness is acceptable. p.s. Am trying one more trick; rv if you don't like. --IHTS (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I supposed you could have "NYSCA" in the header and wl to New York State Chess Association but that could be a bit confusing; it's an organization, not a magazine. Or we could avoid the issue entirely by using a different problem that was published somewhere else. I'd still like it to be a Loyd problem if we go down that path, he was the master in that field. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2026 (UTC) OK the smaller font still takes two lines on my PC, but on the other hand that doesn't bother me in the slightest. But if it looks better on some devices, fine. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Loyd is certainly great. p.s. Curious if you know the font name/pt sz you're using? --IHTS (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Whatever the default is on Chrome? Yeah I know Firefox is technically better but most websites are set up assuming most people are using Chrome. Anyway I'm getting to the age where I prefer larger fonts. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I see. Mine has Arial set, small, and doesn't overflow the diag title. FYI per Perplexity:

Settings → Appearance → **Customize fonts**. Check what's set for "Sans-serif". Wikipedia's reading text is mostly set to 'sans-serif' in its CSS, so Chrome will use whatever you have configured as the default **Sans‑serif font**. On the same page: **Font size** controls the base size for most pages. **Minimum font size** prevents text from becoming too small. Wikipedia also lets you choose **Small / Standard / Large / Larger** via the "Appearance" menu on the page, which works on top of Chrome's size setting.