Talk:Checkmate pattern

discussion

This article was created from individual stubs of the checkmates.

Epaulette mate may need to be moved here.

This article needs some cleanup. There is monotonous redundancy that isn't needed. It may be better to organize the mates into sections and subsections somehow. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It certainly reads poorly saying "is a common method of checkmating" so many times. I would prefer seeing a section heading: "Common forms of checkmating" and then list all common mates under it. Also, I doubt how many of these are actually that common, especially since the list doesn't include the mate of two rooks (or queen), where the king is on the back rank, and rooks occupy ranks 7 and 8. 192.131.177.19 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The given Queen mate is actually a special case of the support mate which can be given at any juncture of the game where mated King is on the side of the board and the square opposite the side can be reached by an unattacked Queen which is covered by any piece - pawn, knight, bishop or rook, as well as a King. Murrel (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge

I think there are a few Merge things to do to comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I got tired last night - I'm finishing it up now. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If I didn't make any errors, all of the articles are now redirects and the project tags have been removed from the talk pages. Next: remove them from index of chess articles, but I can't get to that right now. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Completed. That was more work than it seemed like it would be (22 articles I think). I'm now glad that it is an article by itself rather than being part of checkmate. I thought there were 6-8 of them, instead of 22. The article is about 14K, which would have mate checkmate too large. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Another reason for the merge is that I doubt that many people will type in "Cozio's mate" or "double bishop mate". Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bubba73. I didn't like those checkmate articles, so you are one of my heroes today. If only they hadn't been created as separate articles to begin with, it would have saved you a lot of work. I griped about them, but you actually fixed it. That's much better than my approach. Quale (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

references

Note on references - all of the sections that currently have no inline citations were referenced to the book by Schiller in their stub articles. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Checkmate Patterns - Backlinks

I added backlinks to all the section headings in the Checkmate Patterns page. Quale removed them. I wrote him/her the following:

Quale - why did you remove the backlinks? What is the rationale for removing functionality?

I use this page a lot, it's a pain to navigate without the backlinks. With them, I can just click on heading, go to toc, and look up another mate. Often chessplayers need to do this, e.g. to distinguish between dovetail vs. swallowtail. It's quite standard to backlink to toc when pages have dozens or more lists of entries.

(Note: please don't say to use Home key, I want to click to entry, use the mousewheel to read, click to go back and lookup a new entry without having to take my hand off the mouse)

Refer me to a wiki guideline for practice prohibiting this if you could be so kind.

Is there a reason not to use them? There are about 30 entries, and navigating back and forth is tedious and more cumbersome than it need be.

I offer a rationale for adding functionality - what could the reasons for removing it be? None was offered in the edit.

A quick link to the backlinked version: [[1]]

---

Let me reiterate the problem and the solution...

The webpage has 30 different mates, and a text download of the page has over 1000 lines. This is so large as to be unwieldy, and navigation through the page is difficult and tedious.

Generally speaking, most users will come into the page and look up one entry. The current navigational structure is adequate, i.e. the TOC located at the top of the page.

However, a substantial minority of users will come to the page with the intention of looking up more than one mating pattern. There is also another category of users intent on looking up the name of a pattern they know, who might then need to reference several entries until they find the name of a pattern that matches.

For all of these categories of users the current navigation of the page is problematic for looking up multiple entries. If they already know the name of the mate, they might consider doing a text search which is far from optimal and won't be considered as a solution. Instead, users wishing to look up multiple entries will have to return to the top of the page to rescan the TOC for each new entry.

The crux of the matter, is the problem of returning to the TOC from within the webpage.

How is this done currently? Scrolling to the top of the page in such a large file is prohibitively slow, and so the wheel of the mouse is useless. A better solution is use the cursor to grab the window's scrollbar and drag it to the top. Or perhaps the HOME key on the keyboard could be used. Both of these solutions are suboptimal for a user wishing to navigate the page strictly with a wheel mouse. The keyboard requires user to switch hand positions; whereas the scrollbar solution requires the mouse cursor to make wide swings between the TOC on the left, and the scrollbar on the right.

How would it be done with backlinks? The user is already using the mouse to navigate the TOC to click on an entry. The TOC can be navigated easily by the wheel as can the short content of each mating pattern entry. Once an entry is read the user is but a wheel click or two from a section heading which can be clicked on to return to the TOC. The mouse cursor makes the minimal excursions and is ready to use to click on the next TOC entry just as it is readily positioned for clicking on a backlink. Just rinse and repeat for the lookup of each new entry.

It is a far superior method and is widely used in many HTML documents containing large lists (e.g. glossaries, etc.). I've laboriously expounded on the details in case some are not familiar with the utility of this technique.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.75.241 (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that the back links are needed. In the browsers I use, I can click on one of the sections. Then click on the back arrow in the upper left corner and it takes me back to right were I was in the TOC, even if I have scrolled in between. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I replied on the user's talk page. It's an interesting idea that I haven't seen used before, although I'm really not fond of links in section headings. Now that he or she mentions it, I have seen that technique used in other HTML documents like FAQs. I don't think it is an accepted style on wikipedia.

Thanks for leaving me a message. Normally links aren't used in section headings. The first relevant guideline that I know of is MOS:HEAD, which says

Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked.

There is also Help:Section, but as far as I can see it doesn't address linking in headings. I don't see any mention of exceptions for articles with large numbers of sections and in fact I had never seen anyone link a section heading to the TOC before. My first thought was that I don't like it, primarily because I dislike links in headings, but I admit that I haven't given it much thought. It is an interesting idea, and your edit summary indicating that this is a "de facto" practice intrigued me. Is there a guideline or essay that suggests this linking, and do you have any other similar pages in mind to show as an example that link this way? I wouldn't suggest using the Home key, but I use the Backspace key frequently to go back. It seems to work well in this case as long as you jumped to the section by first selecting it from the TOC. Quale

(talk) 04:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I remembered my wiki login, and am using it this time (I was anonymous before). I do apologize for not discussing the issue prior to implementing it, but I infrequently update wikipedia pages.

I am still trying to remember where I encountered lists with backlinks before. It is a little difficult for me to find the references, since glossaries and other such pages which use them are somewhat unmemorable. It is not as common as I originally thought for several reasons.

1) They are necessary only for very long lists.

2) They are not used where list entries are links to individual pages for each item (in other words, in pages which are not all-in-one lists, such as Checkmate Patterns).

3) Many pages which have a need for such navigational aid instead utilize frames, so as to have the TOC always available, typically on the left side of the page.

In lieu of an optimal reference I will cite an interim page, found on [Microsoft Glossaries]. Please note that Microsoft does not adopt a universal convention. But on the [Excel 2007 glossary] we have an example which is very similar in spirit. It is a rather extensive glossary, of the all-in-one page I alluded to. The TOC is just the letters of the alphabet, which form the sections (there are subitems within each section obviously). Each section header is not itself a backlink, but there is a "TOP OF PAGE" backlink immediately to its right. This is functionally equivalent (a bit more intrusive and not as streamlined, see below in the discussion of printing), and would be an acceptable compromise though not preferred.

I agree with Bubba73 that I have probably encountered this technique in FAQ's. I will try to find other references.

[Update] One cannot find a better example to emulate, in so many ways, than Python (the programming language). Their FAQ indeed uses backlinks, I am most gladdened to report. The Python 2.7.3 FAQ (forget that 3.0 stuff!) can be found here [Python 2.7.3 General FAQ]. The backlinks they use not only link to the TOC, they actually go to the specific line in the TOC corresponding to the specific section, which is most excellent!

Another example can be found in the [Adobe Digital Editions FAQ].

I also looked at the MOS section on Section Headings [1.3 Section Headings] as Quale quoted above. It certainly suggests that section links are allowed, albeit not encouraged. But Checkmate Patterns, and if I might add the MOS itself, could certainly benefit from using backlinks.

Next, I want to address the use of the Back Arrow, which is equivalent to using the Backspace key. The first issue involves the stated objective of ease of use, especially for wheel mouse users. I would encourage you to experiment with the old version I installed to better appreciate the argument. It can be found here:

[Backlinked TOC version]

The idea is to navigate the page strictly using the mouse wheel and buttons while minimizing unnecessary movements of the mouse cursor. This argues against using the Backspace key for right-handed users, since to use the Backspace key involves taking the hand off the mouse. The use of the Back button doesn't have this problem, but does involve moving the cursor between the upper left hand corner and the center of the screen for each lookup item. With backlinks this is not necessary, as the cursor is usually with 2 inches of each link needing to be clicked (again, try the old version to verify this). And as you wheel down the text of an entry, the next section heading is there to be used to return to the TOC, you need not even scroll back. It is quite convenient, and obviously motivates its fans towards prophesying its benefits! (And it might be very useful in the touchscreen world, which is similar to using just the wheelmouse for navigation).

There is another, more subtle, consideration to be mentioned. Using the Back button causes the history to be forgotten the next time the TOC is used. Now, the user may or may not desire that. But it could be that they would like to use the Browser's History dropdown list to see the entries they looked up. More likely than wouldn't, but the backlink technique does allow them to keep their history within the page, unlike the Back button. The user gets more options, which is normally a good thing, in other words.

Next, what are the arguments against? It is somewhat unconventional - agreed, but many good ideas were once. It might confuse users. Perhaps the very first time they click on a section, maybe with the expectation of going to a nonexistent detailed page. But returning to the TOC is actually self-explanatory and a logical place to return to anyways. The last point to be made is that the section heading backlinks are unobtrusive for printing, and invisible when printing a page in B&W (unlike the technique of putting TOP OF PAGE for the backlink).

Well, enough for now (and maybe even too much!)

Interlist-wiki (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem with the idea is that the blue link is undifferentiated from a regular wikilink. I think that would be inherently confusing to a reader. (You click on the link and what ... wonder what you get? Wait and see what you get? And how then would anyone know, without looking in the HTML code, whether it is working correctly/as intended, or, if they are encountering a software bug?) When someone clicks on something, they should know definitively *where* they are requesting to be taken - it shouldn't be guesswork or a "try it and see what happens" deal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ihardlythinkso, for bringing this up. It's a great concern, and one I share. The answer for me is provided by the browser's status bar. I use Firefox generally, but I think all the major browsers show a link's destination in the status bar whenever the mouse is positioned over the link. Whenever I have the slightest doubt about a link I'm sure to look at this. Of course, not everybody uses the status bar (but they should!).

All links potentially have this problem (of going anywhere), unless some convention is used. On Wikipedia there is as yet no convention for section header links. But I think a section header backlink would only suggest two potential destinations (both with the Wikipedia space of course)- a detailed page on the entry, or a return to the TOC. I admit this is a new convention which is unfortunate, but unavoidable at present. But Python, Microsoft, Adobe, etc. all adopt a similar, if not exactly the same, convention. The utility of the idea suggests this convention is becoming more and more familiar, as its adoption increases.

A closing thought. As a new convention for section headers it offers the following flexibility, which may be useful for the Checkmate Patterns page. It provides uniformity - all section headers do the same thing. Useful, since not all the entries, in fact only a few, have dedicated detailed pages. Those entries with such detailed pages can explicitly mention this, and provide the link, within their section. 108.49.75.241 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the proposed advantage of section title backlinks, equally apply to any (and every) lengthy WP article (having substantial TOC contents)? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that looking at the browser's status bar is not the answer. But I'm wondering why the backlink can't provide a drop-down (as a wikilink does) diaplaying something like "Return to TOC" when the cursor hovers on it. (To me, that would be clear, and so acceptable.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think links are discouraged in section headings also because they are very ugly visually. It seems to me that the use case for this for Checkmate patterns is pretty weak. Someone cherry picks several of the patterns out of the TOC without wanting to scan through the entire article? Why? I could imagine wanting to do this for Glossary of chess, but in this article most of the checkmate names are artificial and essentially never used by chess players. I've played chess for 40 years and I don't think I've ever seen more than 10 of the names in the article anywhere outside this article itself. As far as I can tell, the only way this article is useful is to look up a single term you are unfamiliar with or read all of them. I don't see the case for a middle ground here. Quale (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's ugly (black is better), and the use-case for the article is weak. I would think the mentioned drop-down s/w enhancement would be necessary, and, consistent use on articles with large TOCs would be prerequisite too, to even be considered here. p.s. So much for me thinking you were in your 30s! ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

[I'm in total agreement about the aesthetics of backlinked section headers. The blue coloring is dorky. I believe the link color can be overridden, but then that would be non-standard.]

After using the backlinked version for 5 minutes I no longer consider the blue color anything but ordinary. This is strictly a matter of expectation and acclimation. Minor.

I think the best solution would be a small graphic, say of an vertical arrow, to the right of each section. It would be functional, indicative, non-intrusive and aesthetic. You could imagine three buttons - TOC, Next Section, End of Sections (start refs) - it's an idea. I think the drop-down idea also contains the desired functionality, and it would be nice to see a prototype page implementing the idea.

When I made my original edit I didn't think it optimal. But with less than two minutes of editing I added a tremendous amount of functionally, and implemented what could be thought of as a prototype - sufficient to demonstrate the idea. Of course, it took less than 2 minutes to remove the changes as well. But I ask the following - have you tried to use the modified page from the perspective of a user?

Ihardlythinkso makes an astute observation that all wiki pages would benefit from such a navigational aid. If a a survey of your users was done I think it would be a common complaint for long wiki pages. But the political inertia were be fearsome, and I'm not purposing that. I'm speaking as a user - one with an itch to scratch. I've downloaded my changed version - so I already have the benefit. It is because I think others would benefit that I've invested this much effort.

I've already tried to point out that Checkmate Patterns is not the usual wikipage. I think few users of it would seriously sit down to read through it as compared to a typical wikipage. It's basically a glossary, similar to an FAQ. You turn to the page to find out a specific point of interest. Perhaps to skim over to appreciate the diversity of checkmates, but I doubt many players would read through the page start to finish. Do you have metrics of usage for wikipages? Scrolls/minute, etc. or some data to indicate how your pages are being used? Even how often visited, and link of visit?

The normal wikipage doesn't have the same pressing need for backlinks, since it is much more likely to be read sequentially. It could benefit from additional navigation (lord knows that's true for the MOS, at least I think so). But it is hard to imagine a user randomly jumping section to section. Maybe going to just one section and leaving, in which case the TOC is adequate.

But the Checkmate Pattern wikipage is more akin to RAM usage. It is not a typical wikipage. It will not be read straight through. It is more likely to be referenced repeatedly, with one or more lookups of the specific mates. For instance, the user may wish to look up several mates, in non-adjacent locations in order to understand the distinctions between each. As an example, the following mates are often confused, Epaulette, Dovetail, Swallowtail. Again, I suggest going to the current webpage to read each of these three mates. Then, and with a fair and open mind, using the backlinked version to do the same. I think it would be beneficial to the discussion to have concrete experience of actual usage. (Again, why is this technique more and more widespread?)

As to Quale's comments, I've already given one example of why a user might want to "cherry-pick" mates. I am a heavy user of ChessTempo.com (CT), a wonderful tactical training site. We constantly refer to the technical names of everything chessic. Mates are one of our favorite topics. Believe me, if a mating pattern has a name, it gets used on CT. Sometimes people misuse the names, or become confused, and so we repeatedly turn to a site like wikipedia, with the Checkmate Patterns page, as a reference. The CT site has tens of thousands of tactic problems, each of which can have dozens of comments. The discussions can be fierce and involved. Please help us keep them accurate.

Now Quale is correct that a short list of ten mates get the heaviest usage. But you have to find those ten mates in a list of thirty. And sometimes you aren't sure which mate name fits the problem most correctly. For instance, is it Boden's Mate or the Two-Bishop Mate, etc. etc.

OK, thanks. Interlist-wiki (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pillsbury's Mate

Pillsbury's mate wasn't making sense to me so I looked it up and it looks like the black pawn in g7 should be in f7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.241.6 (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

From the diagram, the moves are 1.Rxg7+ Kh8 2.Rg1#. Quale (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Checkmate patterns

What about the two rooks mate?

Do you mean position with white rooks are on g7 and h7, black king in g8 and black rook in f8? I have won a few with that pattern. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

The king and rooks can be anywhere in the same rows as long as the king can't capture either rook. Either of the rooks can also be replaced with the queen.

I suspect BleuDXXXIV meant something like this, as I came here to ask the same question. I suspect its very rare to see this mate outside of novice play, but I think it's one of the first mates new players learn to look for. As an extreme novice myself, I've no idea whether it has a name beyond "two rook mate".-jwanders^Talk 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is called the "ladder mate".

Error

In the pulsburry's mate pattern represented the Morphy's mate. 85.89.126.23 (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead simplification

I understand the desire to simplify the lead as the old text "In chess, several checkmate patterns occur frequently, or are otherwise of such interest to scholars, so as to have acquired specific names in chess commentary." is a bit clumsy. Considering the particular simplification made, unfortunately it isn't true that all the named patterns in this article occur frequently. A more accurate statement is that checkmate patterns have been given names either because they are common and important or because they have aesthetic qualities. What is really needed is a good WP:RS that defines "checkmate pattern". I took a quick look through several books and didn't find anything helpful. Quale (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Arabian mate

The second edition of the Oxford Companion to Chess, which I have got, does not mention old manuscripts for the Arabian mate. It just says that the name "may have arisen because" of the unchanged powers of rook and knight.

It seems that the first edition gave more information (I found two web pages, by the Internet Archive with full text of that edition, the other a strange Chesstempo.com page with a quote).

There apparently an example "problem from an Arabic or Persian manuscript dated 1257" is shown. It is a bit odd that the language is not identified while the year is. I wonder if the O.C. article was shortened in the next edition because of lack of space (of course they needed to make room for new information) or because the authors did not trust the original information anymore. Bever (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In the process of researching etymology for the Wiktionary entry wikt:Arabian mate, I tracked down the original manuscript and the exact page. You can check the Wiktionary link for details. 70.175.192.217 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

term: 'mating net'

I cannot find a completely clear answer to this by web search. The term "mating net" is sometimes used, but I cannot find an example that illustrates how it could be useful to use that term (which is suggestive but not often defined), when one could simply say "mating pattern". Is there a distinction which has any significant value? If not, I'd like this article to mention that they are generally used as synonyms, and if so, I would like to see this article clarify what the distinction is (preferably with a concrete example: e.g. "here is a mating pattern without a net", or "here is a mate where the 'net' is to some degree independent of the 'pattern'). DKEdwards (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The term "mating net" doesn't refer to a specific checkmate pattern or even an pattern checkmate. It's just descriptive wording used to indicate that a king is in danger, for example, "Black must take care not to fall into a mating net" simply means Black is in danger of being checkmated. See mating net. Maybe this article could say something about the terminology. Quale (talk) 06:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the article should clarify. The glossary entry linked to says, "A position or series of moves that leads to forced mate." Which sounds an awful lot like a "Checkmate Pattern." DKEdwards (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hi! What's the convention regarding capitalization of mates? I see, for example, that in this article it is written Boden's mate, but the title of the article on this specific pattern is capitalized as Boden's Mate. Thank you for the input. --TadejM ^{my talk} 22:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

New checkmate pattern

A guy in chess.com just showed his game, just an amazing pattern, with 2 rooks and pawn. look at the end of the game plz.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/dwindling-in-disbelief-a-primer

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

An archetypal Anastasia's mate

to me it's amazing, first time i saw it, but mostly - it's a systematic mate - this can happen. look how the 7th rank rook both protects the pawn, and take the escape-square from the king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.124.8 (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Why do we say damiano's bishop mate / checkmate but not damiano's knight, rook, king, queen (2nd queen), pawn mate ?

Also, I think 'damiano's pawn mate' is not just the regular damiano's mate or lolli's mate. Only references I see are in 'Daasharathi Darahaas Yandam' and chesspuzzle.net.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/sgwxzl/why_do_we_say_damianos_bishop_mate_checkmate_but/ Thewriter006 (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)