Talk:Checkmate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeCheckmate was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 17, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
December 11, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
WikiProject Chess (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Checkmate/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about chess, but I think I'd enjoy reviewing this one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the /GA1 reviewer knows Chess. It also seems to me rather than follow his advice, you have shopped this review for another reviewer.
  • Here is the first bullet point from GA1 that I checked up on: "Several mates are not mentioned, such as the back-rank mate, boden's mate, arabian mate, anastasia mate, smothered mate, also scholar's mate needs a mention, and maybe fool's mate. All of these are fundamental, conceptual checkmates. Give them each a section, description and a little diagram. If any of them already have a full article, link to it with
Main article: Back-rank mate (ChessFiends (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC))"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
    • /GA1 nominator stated "there are too many of them and many of them are very rare. There is checkmate patterns. I do not think it is worthwhile to cover these in this general-interest article. There are many other checkmates that don't have names, and the names of many of the ones in checkmate patterns are dubious anyway. (Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)).
      • The back and forth here is concerning to me as a novice. I would quickfail the article, but instead I will call for a second opinion on whether the article meets WP:WIAGA 3 a. "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". If people who know chess think this covers the various checkmates as comprehensively as the world's foremost international encyclopedia should, I will proceed with the review. Otherwise, I will fail the article for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to review the article because I had a lot to do with it. I don't know what Encyclopædia Britannica says about checkmate, but the foremost encyclopedia of chess is The Oxford Companion to Chess, and the entry on checkmate itself doesn't give any of the particular checkmates. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for more detail Bubba, but the /GA1 nominator is not a valid second opinion for /GA2. We need fresh eyes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Right. In my opinion, Boden's Mate doesn't need to be in the article. It has its own article and it is also in checkmate patterns. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Probably the second-best chess encyclopedia is Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess, by Harry Golombek. It doesn't have a checkmate entry - it says see Endgame. Under Endgame is a section on checkmate, and it discusses checkmate with a bishop and knight (§4.4), with a queen (§4.1), with a rook (§4.2), with two bishops (§4.3), and with two knights versus a pawn (§5). The middle three are covered in detail in this article. There are sections for first and last ones, but they too long to discuss in detail in this article, so it links to their respective articles. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
In fact, I think we can substantially curtail any entry that already has a main article. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 02:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes every type of checkmate that has its own article should be linked from this article but discussed in less detail than at its dedicated article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
All of the 31 checkmates in Checkmate pattern used to have their own stub article. I don't think those should be discussed in the checkmate article. There are simply to many of them. There are also several more in the See Also (e.g. ideal mate), that don't merit discussing in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The one with the bishop and knight is considered fundamental, along with the ones with the queen, with the rook, and with two bishops, since they use the minimum material. The two knights versus a pawn is sometimes considered along with the fundamental ones I think, but it is rare and difficult, and checkmate can't always be forced. But it is interesting, and when people see the other fundamental checkmates, they often ask about two knights. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Your enthusiasm for the subject is admirable. However, I am going to go by the opinion of people other than the /GA1 and /GA2 nominators for my 2nd opinion. I thank you for helping me to understand the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm concerned that putting all of those obscure, unimportant, and very rare checkmates will dilute the article so it doesn't focus on what checkmate really is and the important checkmates. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This is interesting. I see Bubba73's point. However, I do find it intriguing that different kinds of checkmates are included in this page. I believe Wikipedia should be all inclusive in it's topics, without it becoming a book on the subject. I really do believe that Wikipedia will be the starting point for all future academic research of any kind anywhere in the world. As the holder of such a mantel the information should be factual, with multiple perspectives, backed by reliable authors and primary sources, with in-line citations and quotations, etc.

I enjoy the animated fool's mate. I actually do very much believe that it is important, if not essential, to include all the different kinds of essential (and obscure) checkmates, as it provides a broad spectrum of the subject matter and raises Wikipedia as a source of reliable and factual information. I have been playing and teaching competitive, cooperative, and collaborative chess for over 10 years, and I have to admit that I never knew about Boden's mate, or Stamma's mate until I read this article. I believe this is what Wikipedia should be about: learning and wanting to learn more through the discovery of new information.

I like the article. Could it use improvement? Which article could not?

In the instant case the article, which is basically a rule in the game of chess, is backed by 21 primary sources, which is pretty impressive if you consider that we're just talking about the checkmate rule alone.

It even gives you a short history of the rule. If it wanted to be A-Class, then perhaps it would need more more information on the history of the rule, and maybe even it's influence on other fields and popular culture. I like the Silman quote. Maybe some more quotes from famous chess players would be nice, but that is, in my opinion, for an A-Class level chess article, not for a good article nomination review.

In my opinion, it should be promoted to "Good Article" standing. Sirmouse Sirmouse 07:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That was quite contradictory. As I was reading your comment, I was almost sure you were going to agree with the /GA1 reviewer that the various obscure mates should be added to this article and that it should endeavor to be as comprehensive as possible. Then you said go ahead and promote it as it stands.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Obscure mates being added should have no bearing on a GA level review, in my opinion. That would be for an A level review, I believe.

Sirmouse Sirmouse 20:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

I take it you mean "The checkmate with the queen is the most important" paragraph. The "other checkmates" section links to other articles with citations (albeit those other linked pages could use primary sources). Although, it does seem to have quite a bit of in-line citation overall, just in an atypical format.... Sirmouse Sirmouse 21:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

King and queen
  • I am a novice chess player. To me things would be more clear in the King and queen section if the black dots were white.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, but black dots stand out better. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
King and rook
After seeing the alternate positions of the queen in the previous section, the other rook positions should be obvious. And the dots clutter up the diagram. And the source only gives those alternate squares for the K+Q vs. K checkmate. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
King and two bishops
A checkmate with two bishops versus a king cannot occur with the lone king not on an edge - the other king and bishops simply can't cover all of the squares. Checkmate can only be forced with the king on the edge and in the corner or next to it. There are checkmate positions on the edge away from those squares, but checkmate cannot be forced there. (In the checkmate on the square next to the corner, the defending king has just come out of the corner.) Just as with the two knights, the king simply has to avoid going to a square where he can be checkmated on the next move. I checked several books, but none of them discuss this. Finding a reference for it is unlikely. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
King, bishop and knight
Yes. Header and caption changed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There are no stalemates given in the main references that I know of. It is mentioned in the main article, so I don't see a need for having it here. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Two and three knights
The first and second diagrams were switched. Fixed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Other checkmates
changed dot to x. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Citations added. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
See also
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article although now broad enough needs a lot of work.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The inconsistent treatement of stalemates and alternate checkmate positions is troubling. It could take a lot of work to consistently address these issues. The easy way would be to remove the features in the early text, but I think the better solution is to expand the later text, which will take some time. Also the same symbol is used to depict an alternate position as is used to depict moves. This needs to be addressed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I don't mind the unusual format of the WP:ICs. However entire sections or even entire paragraphs without any citation are not acceptable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    My concerns on breadth have been alleviated.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Punctuation is inconsistent. Make sure full sentences end with periods and phrases do not.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    N
#1. Stalemates to avoid - I can't find comprehensive coverage of these in a reference. The reference that has them for K+Q and K+R (Fine and Benko) doesn't have them for other checkmates. These stalemates are sort of beside the point, since they don't occur unless the stronger side makes a mistake. If they must be balanced in the other basic mates, then I think the two that are in there will have to be removed (since I can't come up with them for the other checkmates).
Alternate positions of the checking piece - the source (Pandolfini) only gives this for K+Q vs. K.
#2. I've added some references where I think they are needed. There are a couple of paragraphs that don't say much that don't have references, but they are introducing material that is in the following subsections.
#6. I think the punctuation in the captions is right now. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I was asked to take a second look at this. Your other alternative is a WP:GAR of the version of the article that I failed. I suggest you renominate this. I have completed my review. I don't think it was a mistake. I will not have a comfort level with the article either with inconsistent stalemate presentation or stalemate removal. Paragraphs continue to be uncited. In a well structured article each paragraph presents a new topic and each should have at least one inline citation. I will not be passing this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

remove Boden's mate[edit]

I don't think it needs to be in this article. It is one of many covered in checkmate patterns and it has its own article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

References conventions[edit]

User:Mann jess redid the References heads/structure, with editsum "That's not how we should do a bibliography". Um, that's how Malleus (User:Eric Corbett) does it (for example see Featured Article Stretford) and he is an unquestionably experienced/respected FA-article writer/reviewer. The struture you changed Refs to does not even follow WP:LAYOUT. There are other arguments too, but I'm keeping this short. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Stretford does not use harvcol templates inline. Nor does any other FA that I'm aware of. You reverted my change to a more conventional style, presumably because the bibliography and refs sections were under the same heading. I had to guess why you reverted me because you didn't provide any rationale, you just wrote the template's name in the edit summary. I fixed that, with the idea that it may address your concerns. There's nothing in LAYOUT that I can see violated by the current page.   — Jess· Δ 05:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding your response. I was referring to the org structure "References" section with un-TOC'd subheads "Notes", "Citations", and "Bibliography". I don't think that's a function of/dependent on harvcol. (That seems to be separate issue; I'm not the editor who added harvcols.) What revert of mine are you referring to where I reverted you re References sec? (Can you diff it so I can see what you mean? When I've changed Ref conventions in articles, I don't recall reverting any editor; maybe I did once and don't remember. And what did you "fix", I don't know what you're referring to.) By out of synch w/ WP:LAYOUT, I mean you put Ref citations *after* Bibliography, and WP:LAYOUT specifies the opposite. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh -- I think you mean when I reverted your edit moving a harvcol to References section. (On that revert, my editsum said something like that isn't the convention for chess-related articles, which it's not. [Chess-related articles sometimes use inline harvcols, I don't think I've added any or very few of those myself in regular chess articles, and you may be right about that not being the way in FA articles!; but again that's a diff issue and not what I was referring to here.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


First of all, thanks for your much more pleasant response. I was referring to your edit here, with edit summary "a Harvard inline citation". WP:LAYOUT, a guideline, does say that there is sometimes an order to these three sections. It doesn't much matter to me what order they're in, so if you prefer it a certain way, then by all means, switch them around. I also don't have a strong preference for having three top level sections as opposed to three subsections; I was simply correcting it to a convention I'm familiar with under the assumption it was the reason for your revert (moving the harvcol template into references just linked to another subsection under the same heading, and maybe you didn't like that. I see now that wasn't your reason.) Anyway, I hope that squares these edits away.   — Jess· Δ 06:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
OK. One of the reasons I like Eric Corbett's subheading of Notes, Citations, Bibliography or what have you under one "References" sec, is because then those subheads don't clutter the TOC. (I'm presuming, I guess, a reader would seldom or never have need/desire to click on TOC entry for "Footnotes" or "Citations" e.g., and would only go there via links in the text. So then why extend the TOC for those entries?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
A better plan is to get rid of Notes entirely by merging it into References where it belongs. That will reduce clutter. The three-part division of citations is needlessly fussy and serves no purpose. Quale (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Even on smallish articles, User:Eric Corbett, respected FA article-writer/copyeditor, uses the three, e.g. Beerhouse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Notes are useful in really well written articles sometimes. I don't know that applies here. I integrated them into the article and refs. Does that work for everyone?   — Jess· Δ 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me, as all you've done is to clutter up the text unnecessarily because of some objection to notes that I don't understand. Your arrangement of the Bibliography before the citations also looks strange, but the article's got so many other problems that one or two more or less don't make much difference. Can you think of even a single use case that would require a reader to click on the References section in the TOC? Eric Corbett 13:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're referring to me. I said above, I really don't have a preference in ordering the citations. Feel free to change it however you'd like. I only removed the notes to address a concern from others, but after having actually combed through each one of them, I do support their removal. Notes can be a great place to put tangential (but relevant) text that's too detailed for the body. That wasn't the case; all the text in the notes fit well in the body, or didn't belong in the article at all.   — Jess· Δ 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll repeat my question then: "Can you think of even a single use case that would require a reader to click on the References section in the TOC?" Eric Corbett 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I've clicked on it before, for 3 reasons: 1) To check how well sourced the article was, 2) to get to the bottom of the article quickly, 3) to find a specific reference manually, without having to scour the whole article for its link. I often use wikipedia to find references for a topic, not just to get a wikipedia summary. That said, I don't really know how this applies to what we're talking about.   — Jess· Δ 17:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Those reasons seem to be for purposes of an editor. (Articles s/b stuctured for their readers, not editors.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question adequately. Why would you ever want to check for a specific reference manually as a reader? And if you want to get to the bottom of an article quickly as a reader you can simply click on your End button. Why is it more important as a reader to get to the bottom of an article quickly, from the TOC let's remind ourselves, than it is to quickly get to the top? And as you claim not to understand why this is relevant to what we're talking about try reading Ihardlythinkso's comment above about unnecessarily cluttering up the TOC. Eric Corbett 19:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't get the animosity. When Ihardlythinkso said he preferred things a different way, I said it was fine and encouraged him to make the change. As a reader, I've clicked on the "References" link for those three reasons. You asked me, and I answered. Finding out if an article you're reading is well sourced is important for a reader. Finding sources on a given topic is important for a reader. Navigating the article can be useful to a reader.   — Jess· Δ 19:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're getting complete bewilderment at the logic of your position, and your inability or unwillingness to answer a simple question. Which is in what way does your structure, at odds with the recommendation in WP:LAYOUT, help a reader? Not an editor but a reader. But of course the question is by now hypothetical, as it clearly doesn't. Eric Corbett 20:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what else you want me to say. Honestly. Can you give me an example of an answer you feel would address your question? Because I can't, for the life of me, see how I haven't answered it twice. Nothing about the current structure is at odds with layout, except possibly the order of "short citations" and "long citations", which I've repeatedly encouraged you and ihardlythinkso to switch if you want.   — Jess· Δ 20:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
But that's precisely the point. There is no use case to justify your cluttering of the TOC. Eric Corbett 21:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Your question is "why would a reader click on the references link", right? A reader would click on it to find references for a topic. Why is that not an answer to your question? I know Pritchard published a book on chess variations. If I go to the article of a chess variation, like Antichess, and click on "References", I can find his book. I can also find other books published about chess variations, which is useful to me, as a reader. I'm honestly completely lost by this whole conversation. What's the edit being proposed?   — Jess· Δ 22:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Hard to believe you're not getting this ... Of course every WP article will have a "References" sec and corresponding clickable link in the TOC. What's been referred to here is the non-utility and excess clutter re your breaking up that sec into separate secs "Bibliography" and "References". (And besides looking weird, it'd confuse blind users I think who expect to find in WP:LAYOUT order.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm waiting for a reply from Eric Corbett regarding his question. Please respect my request in the section below. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ 19:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I've already said all I intend to here. I can waste my time much constructively elsewhere. Eric Corbett 19:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Got it. So no edit is being proposed, and your question doesn't relate to article improvement. I'm happy to move on, then. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 19:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It will make the Brits happy[edit]

Original text:

The symbol "++" is sometimes used, but rarely. It can also mean double check.

Recently changed to:

The symbol "++" is also, rarely, used, but it can also mean double check.

Why not another comma after the conjunction "but"?:

The symbol "++" is also, rarely, used, but, it can also mean double check.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I combined the sentences to avoid an ambiguous "It". ("It", meaning "++", or the "#" we were just talking about more extensively?) I don't think adding more commas really helps. If you see a way to remove commas without introducing ambiguity, I'd support that.   — Jess· Δ 16:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC
I don't think adding more commas really helps. Um, I, was, obviously, being, facetious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried something different. Let me know if that works for you.   — Jess· Δ 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A rewrite wasn't necessary; it was a perfect application for Notes seeing that "++" is also old-style notation and not used on WP except in the Double check article, and there was no ambiguity as a Note, but, you sac'd that solution when you eliminated Notes. I won't be commenting any further on your copyedit decisions, it eats up too much of my time for no good. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Since the article claims it is notation used for a checkmate, it is relevant to our article on checkmates. I removed Notes to address your and Quale's concerns about clutter. You're welcome. See you around.   — Jess· Δ 19:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Um, Quale's and my concerns about clutter were different. For my concern, you created the concern with your change. (Saying you solved my concern when there was no concern, makes no sense.) p.s. I never eliminated the "++" info from the article, I simply moved it to Notes, where it was more appropriate. But you quashed that by removing Notes sec. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
You said the TOC was cluttered by the three sections, suggesting fewer than three would be good. Then Quale suggested we remove notes altogether. So I did. I, personally, didn't care either way. You just said you wouldn't be participating in the discussion further. If you changed your mind and you want to talk about it, let me know.   — Jess· Δ 20:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. (You created my concern about clutter, by creating clutter where previously there was none.) Regarding your editsum And please don't break up my replies, it makes it appear as though I was responding to a comment I was not. you are completely in error. (Your posts were already broken up, by you. I responded to your first post, using proper indenting. There was no ambiguity or anything improper, yet you move my post to an out-of-context position, while accusing and admonishing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Re You just said you wouldn't be participating in the discussion further. That's not what I said or meant. What I said and meant was that I would not be commenting on any (future) edits of yours to the article since dealing with you is impossible and leads to a waste of time. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer we don't interact further. The only content issue you brought up in this section is one I already addressed. Please don't address me further, unless you're prepared to do it with a fundamentally different approach, and please don't move or refactor my comments to different areas than I place them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 3:47 pm, Today (UTC−5)

You inappropriately moved my post in this thread twice, about your copyedit. The elimination of Notes section where that sentence best belonged is also a topic here, so quit hatting it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer we don't interact further. Please don't address me further, unless you're prepared to do it with a fundamentally different approach Should I template your user Talk re "comment on content, not editors"? Do I need to remind you what article Talk is for? Seems to me you initiate personal comments to create irrelevancies you later use as basis for hatting. (A nice trick; but a dishonest one.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove "islamic world"[edit]

Chess reached Europe from Iran via origins in India, perhaps through other lands - this is no way means it came from the "islamic" anything. There is no need to reference this religion as it does not comprise the identity of Iran or the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.29.247 (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Common" Checkmates[edit]

I'm admittedly a chess novice, but I don't think the "Scholar" and "Fool's" mate are at all common, yet they're here in the "Common Checkmates" section. I would think they would be better in an "Unusual Mates" section?-jwandersTalk 17:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Add more on use outside chess?[edit]

There seems to be only a single sentence, under Etymology, on how the word is used outside chess. It seems like that usage deserves a bit more coverage, probably to the point of being a paragraph in the intro or a smallish section. Outside chess, I'd say that "checkmate" connotes not only defeat, but that one must have been maneuvered into a position where there is no escape. I'd say that defeat by brute force or accident doesn't qualify, and that one must be trapped, not killed.

However, I can't immediately come up with a referenceable source that describes that usage.

Jordan Brown (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's possible that editors have gotten stuck on WP:NOT#DICT. I don't know if we have anything encyclopedic to say about the use of "checkmate" outside of chess that isn't simply a dictionary definition. Quale (talk) 06:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Two different-color bishops mate--is it sometimes not possible?[edit]

The text describing different situations, depending on which side moves first, appears contradictory and garbled. A chess expert should be able to resolve this easily.CharlesHBennett (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's sometimes not possible, simply because if the bare king is to move, in some positions, the king can immediately capture one bishop. 195.157.65.228 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"Lawnmower mate"?[edit]

The article currently has nicknames for several of the checkmate types, such as "corridor mate". I suggest adding "lawnmower mate" for the two major pieces mate. 195.157.65.228 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

I corrected the poor English and someone reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Checkmate&oldid=prev&diff=846637094

You changed it to an incorrect statement. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Checkmate K-Pop co-ed group[edit]

Hii, there's another 'CHECKMATE' dude. It was a K-Pop co-ed group JamphiKpop (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia has an article about them, list it at Checkmate (disambiguation). Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)