Talk:Glossary of chess


Cook

I changed the definition of "Cook", since: According to the British Chess Problems Society site http://www.bcps.knightsfield.co.uk/introduction.html, A cook is an unintended solution; also, it is is not a "second" solution, because certain types of problems have many times more than one intended solution.

Two-fold attack

Although this term is used and defined in Averbakh, I do not recall seeing it used and/or defined that way anywhere else. Perhaps this is some term that is commonly used in Russian? We cannot include a term in the glossary just because some textbook defines it and uses it; otherwise our glossary would be full of neologisms from, for example, Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two-fold attack is not a language specific term, it is a term that describes the common situation in chess when two pieces attack a singular target. How else would you call it? Double attack? A fork is a double attack, so is a pin, a skewer, a discovered attack, or any other combination of two attacks including threats.
Here is another instance of the usage of the term two-fold attack. Erukx (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was also completely unfamiliar with "two-fold attack" as chess terminology. My guess is that most chess writers in English have not felt the need for a term to describe two pieces attacking a single target. It is common to have three or four pieces attack a single target, and chess writers don't seem to need terms for that either. Usually it's only the difference in number of times attacked and number of times defended that matters. (Along with the other considerations such as material value of attackers compared to the value of the defenders.) Quale (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading Averbakh, I see that he gives three different definitions of two-fold attack:
  • two pieces attacking one;
  • two pieces each attacking different pieces;
  • one piece attacking two (i.e. a fork).
Bruce leverett (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Averbakh refers to his glossary as a list of "technical terms", but "two-fold attack" is not a technical term in the sense that is intended by MOS:GLOSS. "Attack" is a technical term and we have a glossary entry for it. "Two-fold attack" is just the modification of "attack" using the adjective "two-fold", which is well known in both chess and non-chess contexts. The phrase doesn't need its own glossary entry. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the def of countergambit

Countergambit is not a very important term and the glossary def given here is too long, essentially giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Quale (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, nice work. Dayshade (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Club level

Somebody please define "club level", as used in Chess openings. A general meaning is "preferred seating at sporting events", which is not applicable. I found a chess-specific explanation on SE. 38.130.155.44 (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a term that might be appropriate to include in this glossary. But the source you have found includes several definitions, and StackExchange is not something we can get away with citing anyway. If anyone reading this knows of a good definition of "club level" we can cite, it would be helpful. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find the term a bit outdated; I feel like "casual play" might be better. Dayshade (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"mouse slip" and "misclick"

These aren't specifically chess terms. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are right. Moreover, the source we are citing for "mouse slip", an article from Chess Life Online, does not define the term; it only uses it. I will take the liberty of removing both glossary entries. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"move"

I'm no chess expert, but I'm pretty sure that in real life, except perhaps in certain specific contexts, "move" refers to a play by white or black, not a sequence of two plays by white and black. I suggest the entry should be modified to reflect this reality. (Many examples of this usage can be found in other entries in this glossary.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is used with both meanings. For example, the "50-move draw" rule refers to a sequence of 50 two-plays. And usually, when the progress or outcome of a game is reported, it will say "The game is at move 27", or "he resigned after 27 moves", meaning 27 moves by both sides. But I agree that "move" is sometimes used with the meaning you described. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will attempt to modify the entry, then, to take account of the two meanings. Others may be able to improve it further. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Glossary_of_chess