Talk:Chess tactic

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-07-15. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Merger?

Shouldn't this article be merged with Chess strategy and tactics? --jacobolus (t) 11:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it should be merged. --Validusername

I agree. Bubba73 (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now they should be two seperate articles. Bubba73 (talk), 05:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome?

In the external sites, it currently reads: "www.chesstactics.org - Awesome site"

The word 'awesome' strikes me as inappropriate, some how. Also, the site is nothing special anyhow. Tommy-Chivs 16:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

The Deletion Review (DRV) for this article is Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 July 16#Chess tactics. Bubba73 (talk), 03:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Links

There are at least two links to blog content in the links section. The content of the blogs is related to the topic, but are blog links likely to have any staying power? Isn't it also an invitation to a bunch of blog spam?

Morphy vs Consult Team 1858 (Opera Game)

Unfortunately the diagram is wrong -- Morphy's queen is on b3, not c3. Technically, one could just change the caption ("a position similar to Morphy vs Consult..."), but then the text "In the left diagram, black can't move the knight without losing the queen" remains problematic, since ...Nd5 or ...Nxe4 require further explanation. Ideal would be to correct the error in the diagram, but I'm not sure how to upload a corrected chessboard image. Thanks! --98.194.83.52 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an old-style diagram - it must have been created by someone with some software. We have a diagram template, but there is no way to do the arrows on it. We should probably replace the old diagrams with new ones, sans the arrows, and describe the moves that the arrows are illustrating. Bubba73 (talk), 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bubba. Would it be okay if I replaced all seven of old diagrams with templates and then described them? Artichoker 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Finished Artichoker 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artichoker (talk • contribs)

I was just going to say that it was OK with me, and you did it in the mean time! Bubba73 (talk), 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

many of the external links were blatant spam links to paid chess websites, i deleted these and some other minor links that linked to examples of tactics and were repetitive Rubico (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer section

The section on computers is definitely a copyright violation. Perhaps someone will rewrite it, but I don't think it needs to be in this article anyway (one on computer chess would be better). So I recommend deleting it rather than rewriting it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 22:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is that a Computer section is included; although obviously not one with copy violation. SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pawn placement

I don't see any sources saying pawns are better placed on both colors (of squares) than just one (in a pawn chain). In fact, these pawns are weaker because of the lack of mutual support. But I'm not an expert, and would like others' opinions.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example

Animated example of a relative fork attack is bad because this fork does not cause any threat: the knight is defended by the rook, and the rook can easily continue to defend it after moving to avoid the threat. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the animated examples are bad in my opinion. The article needs work, but instead of complaining about it I should step up and improve it. Quale (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't like chess position animations. If the user could control the frames, that would be a different matter. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Animated gifs are a pox. I don't like distracting blinking, moving, animated things on my screen when I'm trying to read. Some people have talked about a Javascript game viewer for Wikipedia like those used on other chess sites, and I think that would be much better since the user is in control of the playback. Quale (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not only distracting, but the examples are rather silly constructions. They were added Sept. 11, 2010 by User:WaddenMedia [1] without discussion here after this suggestion by SyG. The text from the user is suggestive of rank beginner. On these bases am going to delete them. p.s. Love the piece icons though! (Wish WP had those, instead of our current changing and dysfunctional set. Perhaps the font is from copyrighted software. I've seen it in different Net applications, would like to see it somehow secured and made avail at WP for standard use. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits, certainly not done by a long shot, but need a break from editing for now. (Someone else can please feel free to continue it.) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the piece icons in the animations - they are fuzzy, as if a low-resolution version was blown up or something. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are a bit fuzzy. (I assume it's this particular application of the font, and that the font itself, wouldn't have that quality. I've seen this font in other online applications, and the edges are crisp. It's a nice font reminiscent if not the same as what Batsford publisher has used.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chess tactic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422092639/http://chesstr.com:80/ to http://www.chesstr.com/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090421064140/http://www.snufflenose.com:80/? to http://www.snufflenose.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links are completely out of control

I don't have time to go through and assess them all right now but someone needs to get rid of the spam, per WP:ELNO. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]