Talk:Chess/Strategy

Zigzwang
i edited the zigzwang module,jus a bit,felt the definition was not clear or even wrong,i think even the explanation have to be rewritten. fanx-johnson

I agree, I think that it should be clearer. I don't think I'm the person to do it as I'm someone who understands the game but is not knowledgable in the game. Perhaps make it clearer that the pawn is protected (rook or bishop) and define why the king cannot simply move in front of the pawn. --Nathan 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)--207.54.103.2 22:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
Just wanted to ask...do we capatalize piece names "Bishop, Knight" regardless of their position within a sentence or not? I have seen this applied randomly and just wanted to check.

--IRelayer 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

King worth 3.5?
This doesn't make sense to me. Is there citation to explain how the King could be worth 3.5 (and thus logically worth less than both a rook and a queen) when the entire point of the game is to capture the other player's King while defending your own? The King's value should be infinite.
 * The non-royal equivalent piece known as Man or Mann (Commoner) is within a knights value. So an royal king with all his check restrictions should not gain +0.50 additional value just because it's royal and always remains on the board. The mate vulnerability is a big negative to the total piece value. While i do agree that the King is often reckoned as the strongest piece in minor piece endgames. A value of 3.25 or close to 3.35 make more sense in my book (endgame). --Sunny3113 (discuss • contribs) 18:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

utter nonsense
"Games are considered open if the central pawns have been captured, and closed if they have not. Semi-closed games refer to games where some mix of the center pawns have been captured." What ignorant bulls**t; that's not an accurate definition at all. And it just gets worse. Get someone who actually knows something about chess to write this thing, or toss it on the junkpile; as it is, it's worse than useless, and gives the impression that Wikibooks is a joke.
 * Yes, agree about that sentence. How about correcting it yourself? SunCreator (discuss • contribs) 01:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)