WikiProject Chess/Archive 1

This is an archived version of WikiProject Chess. Please see that page for current discussions.

About PGN files upload

(Moved from English Talk Chess Project) I am wanting to add links to PGN files to a number of articles in Category:Chess_games and possibly Category:Chess_openings. I noticed that Immortal game has one Media:Immortal game.pgn which was according to the history added by User: Camembert. I left a note for him asking for help on how to do this just now but though I woudl ask here as well. From reading through the documentation on uploading files it looks like only a very limited number of file types are supported. Mostly sounds and images. Is there a trick to this or can I just upload PGN and it will work? Also how do you get to the file info page for one of these once its uploaded? Dalf | Talk 01:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've answered Dalf's question on my user page, but this is probably of wider interest, so I'll respond here too.

Sadly, it is no longer possible, to the best of my knowledge, to upload PGN files. It was some time last year (I think) that they, together with uploads of all files not in certain image or sound formats, were stopped, apparently for security reasons (I'm not clever enough to understand exactly what the security reasons were; anybody interested should probably ask at the Wikipedia:help desk, since the help pages on the subject seem rather lacking). Files in other formats which had already been uploaded were not deleted, which is why you still see PGN files around the place.

As for getting to the description page of these files: as far as I know, there's no way other than manually editing the address in your browser's location bar. So, for instance, to get to the PGN file Dalf mentions, one browses to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Immortal%20game.pgn

If I'm wrong about this, and there really is a way to still upload PGN files, I'd be very happy if somebody could let me know, since I have quite a few floating about my hard drive that would find happy homes in articles. --Camembert 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should ask/bug the developers to let us upload PGNs again. Perhaps someone who knows to proper protocol for feature requests could do this? I don't think there would be any security issues; IIRC, PGNs are just text files without support for code execution. — Bcat (talk | email) 13:48, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Why not just link to one of many web-pages, which allow to replay the game online? For example: Immortal game. This is more convinient for the readers. Andreas Kaufmann 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

That's right. But it can be didactic and interesting to have the corresponding PGN to each article, alone, no in package. What do you think about?--GengisKanhg (my talk) 9 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Universal standard for displaying chessboards and positions

Introduction

A common standard for displaying chessboards and positions is missing, giving rise to a multiple of different solutions between wikipedias - and within the individual wikipedia as well. The boards have mostly been created by some external tool and uploaded as an image to the local wiki.

Another solution which has gained momentum is to base the board on a template and then upload the tiles to commons. It originated from en:wikipedia and has been described here together with instructions for use: [1].

In the Danish wiki, some changes to this solution have been introduced, but the solution is still compatible with the English one. The Danish Solution is described in detail here: [2].

A recent development has been to create transparent tiles. It seems, however, that transparency is not supported by all browsers, i.e. not by IE.

The English, Danish, and transparent tiles can be seen here: Chess tiles

German and Spanish (and Italian?) are presently discussing their standards. See German discussion and Spanish discussion.

It seems that both German and Spanish wiki have some preference for the look produced by ChessBase and are trying to bring it on the format that can be used together with the templates.

Examples of these boards are:

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

English Chessboard without frame, align left, caption centered.

	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

Danish Chessboard, without frame, align left, caption centered.
Example of arrows.

The German board (suggested) looks as follows:

Chessboard from ChessBase (image)

Questions

1. Is it desirable to standardize chessboards further between wikis?
2. If so, should there be only one universal board or freedom of colour, frame etc.
3. What should then be the standard?
4. Should a solution be template-based as above?
5. Should we all await a wiki-solution, i.e. from Wikisophia.org's Wikitex Chess
6. Could a solution be found that could be extended to other boardgames as well (Go, Checkers, f.example)?
7. (Further questions may be added...)

Common answers

Lets edit this section in order to achieve common answers.

1. Is it desirable to standardize chessboards further between wikis?

Agrees.

1. The chessboard across wikimedia projects (wikipedia, wikibooks, etc) has a graphical nature, then we have a great advantage working together in a unique powerfull template.
2. Template instructions can be translated to any language and only few items (like algebraic notations) should be in english for template invocation.

Disagrees.

1. An unique common template implies common invocation, then it should to be in english language for obvious reasons.

Discussion

2. If so, should there be only one universal board or freedom of colour, frame etc.

Agrees.

1. The more standarization the less the work we should do. Then is desirable use a unique style worldwide at wikis. But, in order to allow disagrees in styles the template should be easily adaptable to other styles.

Disagrees.

1. Right now there are several chessboard styles across wikis.

Discussion The larger number of chessboard diagrams are at english wikipedia, then, in order to do less job we might have a template according (at most) to the english one.

3. What should then be the standard?

1. This discussion is the central purpose of this whole TALK. Then do it in a special section.

4. Should a solution be template-based as above?

Agrees.

1. The current template based chessboards widely used in english, danish and spanish is the best probe of the possibilities of the templates.
2. While no other great solution exist, then work with this.

Disagrees.

5. Should we all await a wiki-solution, i.e. from http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Wikitex_Chess

1. See TeX support section.

6. Could a solution be found that could be extended to other boardgames as well (Go, Checkers, f.example)?

Agrees.

1. A common solution for many board games is too complicated at this stage.

Disagrees.

Please contribute with your thoughts and ideas.

--Sir48 14:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

End of Introduction. Start of

---

Answers to the questions

To your questions:

• (1) yes
• (2) I would prefer ONE standard board
• (3) User user:Gengiskanhg suggests to make tiles for the ChessBase style. I guess this will be very nice. We should wait for his solution.
• (4) yes
• (5) no, I fear loss pf flexibility
• (6) no
• (7.1) It would be fine to have a solution which allows (a) n x n boards (not ony 8 x 8 board) and (b) arrows.
• (7.2) What about "Märchenschach" (I dont know the english expression, google translates "Fairy tale chess")? I think it would be find if we could use such pieces. -- Tsor 10:24, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-- user tsor from de [3] Tsor 15:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

let's see, if user:Gengiskanhg comes up with a solution. The board look rather dark to me. Arrows are easy to implement in the template-solutions. --Sir48 17:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. One standard board.
3. I support the current English Wikipedia look. The Danish colors are too distracting. The green is a peaceful color.
4. Yes.
5. We have been waiting for the Wikitex Chess for too long already.
6. Checkers is easy, it could be done with the current template by adding four additional images. However, the template should not be made too complex. I wouldn't make this board an n×n board.

--ZeroOne

• (1) Yes.
• (2) One universal style, but we should allow easy changes of styles (Now, there isn´t agree about).
• (3) Chessbase style is pretty for me, more professional, but ZeroOne say the true, is too dark. So, I prefere the Danish one for now, but I think new proposals and votation should be made.
• (4) Yes. Invidual images are too resouces consumption, LaTeX support is not working now and needs harder implementation than template. Lets wait for the defenders when LaTeX works and then discuss.
• (5) Obviously NO.
• (6) NO at this stage. Lets simplify work, not make it more difficult. If a proposal come, then discuss it, not before.
• (7) n x n board is a technological challenge for templates, I think. The same like above, when a proposal came, lets discuss it.

--Gengiskanhg 27 June 2005 03:26 (UTC)

When did I ever say the Chessbase images are too dark? I only said the Danish brown colors are too distracting, especially the red arrows. The fancy border is also needless, taking your attention away from the board. The chessbase images are fine, but, now that you mentioned it, they could have a larger contrast. The English template is optimal in this sense, I think. --ZeroOne

The red arrows are not presently a part of the Danish solution - just made as a quick example to show, how easily arrows could be created - as long as they are on an empty field. On my flat monitor, the green colours look very bad - on a traditional monitor they are more acceptable. --Sir48 28 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

---

1. Yes! I've seen too many different styles of boards at Wikimedia.
2. Yes. (See answer 1.)
3. I like the current English style.
4. Yes, templates are good.
5. Not now, but I'll support changing to one if it becomes available.
6. I don't really care either way. If others can reuse our template(s) without too much difficulty, I say go for it. If not, that's OK too.

— Bcat (talk | email) 03:11, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• (1) yes
• (2) yes
• (3) I like the Danish solution.
• (4) yes
• (5) no
• (6) I don't know. I'm just a chess player.

Miastko 21:58, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. I prefer the Polish chessboard (chessboard #8 below).
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. No.

Klin 7 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)

TeX support

• Do you think TeX is going to make the current template unuseful?
• Do you think TeX is going to come soon?
• Do you think wordlwide wikimedians should wait for TeX either work on the template?

--GengisKanhg (my talk) 23:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Depends. I've noted TeX is black and white only, and doesn't have a WYSIWYG kind of editing style, which is crucial for ease of use. Currently, it seems to only support standard chess, as well, and not variants, which is crucical for showing examples, and even in tournaments. -- Natalinasmpf 15:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Note: This discussion was bring from the english template talk page [4])

It looks as if User:Natalinasmpf describes some demands to board/tiles beyond standard chess. I would appreciate a further description and/or links to pages where such demands could be seen --Sir48 27 June 2005 07:39 (UTC)

Try w:Fischer Random Chess, for starters. -- 24.31.140.69 05:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Fischer Random Chess uses the same tiles and board as does "normal" chess. No new requirements from that side. --Sir48 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, but it wouldn't be supported by the TeX interface (IIRC) - since it follows standard notation strictly. Does it interpret things like "start at FEN position 550"? -- 24.31.138.74 21:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen of TeX chess, it looks kind of ugly and hard to use. If it's improved, cool, but I don't think it's worth waiting for. — Bcat (talk | email) 03:15, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Chess variants

There is some need for board/tiles beyond standard chess. For example: w:Capablanca Chess, board 8x10 is needed with two new tiles: Archbishop (Knight+Bishop compound) and Chancellor (Knight + Rook). The same for w:Gothic Chess. w:Grand Chess needs the same pieces but the board 10x10. There are also notable chess variants (not yet in Wikipedia) with 5x5 (e.g. Mini chess) and 6x6 board (e.g. Los-Alamos chess). Andreas Kaufmann 21:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Probably chessboards of nonstandard dimensions need special templates. In my opinion this solution is acceptable. Here is my proposal for Capablanca chess (--Klin 10:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)):

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

Capablanca chess

• • Looks very cool! Actually for archbishop and chancellor I would prefer as in Alfaerie Variant Chess Graphics (see "Composite" section), but your pieces are also nice. Andreas Kaufmann 12:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately it is nearly impossible to implement the composite pieces you pointed out, especially the dark ones. Note that they are not black (because the outline of the front piece must be visible), while our dark pieces are really black. I took pattern of the chancellor from w:Gothic Chess and designed the archbishop per analogiam. I hope they are quite suitable. --Klin 19:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, your pieces are also great! It would be also nice to have Amazon, queen + knight compound. It is needed e.g. for w:Maharajah and the Sepoys article. Andreas Kaufmann 21:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

About colors and pieces styles

Lets vote for one set of tiles (color and styles of pieces and background) right now in order to start to use them in the general template and make a more time effort discussion and proposals to improve the best colors and chess pieces. This means, rewrite the tiles with the new style (if it will win in the votations), this will be reflected automatically in all the templates than use the tiles.

1. My vote is for Brown (Danish) style. --Gengiskanhg 27 June 2005 04:37 (UTC), but if Chessbase become lighter I vote for it. --Gengiskanhg 27 June 2005 18:27 (UTC)
2. --Sir48 27 June 2005 07:29 (UTC)
3. I prefer ChessBase style if someone is able to create such tiles. If not I vote for Brown (Danish). Let us avoid those ugly green or blue colors (sorry I do not want to blame someone;-)) -- tsor 10:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. I vote for the English style, with either the English or Danish colors. — Bcat (talk | email) 03:17, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
5. AFAIK, Chessbase diagrams aren't free, so we'd have to upload them as fair use. I think we should use images under a free license. — Bcat (talk | email) 03:20, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• Chessbase style

I think to create it is not too hard for take it out of the votations. I mean, lets get it in, and if this chessboard wins, lets make the tiles. I think this is the best style, the more pretty pieces styles with some shine and the special textures of the background make it very profesional. But I agree it can be so dark for somebody or under some situations (old monitors, "tire eyes", had illuminance conditions, etc). I think a lighter style based in "Chessbase" is going to be the ideal one. --Gengiskanhg 27 June 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Hi. Now I just installed the KolourPaint (I use GNU/Linux), so I am waiting for a time window to create the tiles from Chessbase board. If you do it before, please tell to us in order to do not repeat job, thanks. --Gengiskanhg 28 June 2005 22:42 (UTC)

I think you should try to create a dark and a light tile as a beginning. Then at least we can see a chessboard. I'm not sure, it is going to be that easy.--Sir48 22:45, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not good idea to adopt Chessbase style of chessboard, even if there are no copyright problems (what is not quite clear). This style is widely known among chess players and recognizable as the firm's brand. We should avoid any suspicions of hidden promotion of a commercial product. We have a chance to create something new, characteristic for Wikipedia. Klin 7 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)

Transparent Template

And the use of transparent templates, what about naming for those? I'm going to split the current chess template into two templates, the one that uses transparent PNG's, and the ones that don't, since there have been reported problems lately about compatability. I might name the forked off template wrongly, so if you feel its that way, tell me. I've relocated it to Template: Chess position t, which I suppose, then Template:Chess Position1 t will have their own, etc. -- Natalinasmpf 17:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This english wikipedia "Special characters" note [5] suggest something for us. Lets look at the i-explorer solution for transparent view capability.--Gengiskanhg 00:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Note; This section was bring from [6])

Chessbase chessboard election

Moved to the discussion page. in order to simplify this article.

Castling notation

The official FIDE handbook dictates that the correct castling notation is "0-0" and "0-0-0" (using numeral 0) instead of "O-O" and "O-O-O" (using letter O) — see section E13 of this E.I.01B. section of FIDE Handbook. It seemed that Wikipedians are split between "O-O"-and-"O-O-O" and "0-0"-and-"0-0-0", with the majority (I think) prefer "O-O" and "O-O-O".

Has there been any official consensus on this matter? Shall we standardize (change) all existing notations? If so, to which notation? Thanks 61.94.148.160 05:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The FIDE handbook isn't as explicit as you make it sound. It merely has an example using the numeral 0, which as far as we know could just be the result of a secretary retyping a printed document without caring about the issue. On the other hand, the PGN standard calls for the letter O. All PGN implementations produce the letter O (although many will also accept numeral 0 as input).--136.152.196.69 08:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I remember there is no official standard for taking notation. One could take notes in self created hebrew system (as a friend of mine did). I think we should reach a concensus on one method, but I think both are in somewhat common use. BrokenSegue 22:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Chessbase

• Call me ignorant, but are the chessbase images available under a free copyright license? BrokenSegue 16:06, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
• Call me ignorant, but I'd like to know too. I think we should only use images that we can upload to the Commons. — Bcat (talk | email) 16:32, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • somehow I doubt they are available under GFDL as stated. BrokenSegue

At commons the chessboard chessbase images have a free license, but really I am not sure. I hope someone which a best knowledge of chessbase can aswer us this very important point. --GengisKanhg (my talk) 16:36, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

In that case I would make tiles from the chessbase images at commons, I mean, I only cut that images already there. But if they are not free this is going to be a bad work. Lets research about. We should remember than the estandar selected tiles can be changes at any time. --GengisKanhg (my talk) 16:41, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Well, I asked ChessBase if they allow using diagrams created with the ChessBase program (e.g. [7]). At 9. Febr. 2005 I got following answer (email):

es gibt keinerlei Einwände gegen die Verwendung des ChessBase-Diagramms.
Über die Quellangabe freuen wir uns.

Mit Freundleichen Grüßen

André Schulz

Translation of this answer (hope I am doing right):

 there are no objections against using of the ChessBase diagram. 
 We are pleased about the indication of source.

 Greetings

 André Schulz

-- Tsor 21:41, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

So what license should we tag them with? Maybe GFDL for the creating user and attribution (cc-2.0-by) for chess base? Or we could just leave it as GFDL for the creator and mention them everytime as a curtesy (isn't GFDL more strict than cc anyways). Exactly what is ChessBase? Aren't they the people who make Fritz? (that's what wikipedia implies). Also if you notice they said we couild use images created by chessbase but didn't mention images from (ie. the chess piece icons) the program. There is a difference (albeit a small one). BrokenSegue 00:38, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

BrokenSeque, ChessBase is the name of both a company and the database software they make. (Yes, they also make Fritz.) As for a license, I'd go for a combination of the GFDL and CC-2.5-by-sa. I'd be very careful about using ChessBase tiles, though. IANAL, but copyright law seems kind of messy. I think we should be sure they know exactly what we intend to do. — Bcat (talk | email) 02:33, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I've seen diagrams using strikingly similar piece sets is magazines and other chess programs. Are we even sure that ChessBase owns the copyright on them? --Malathion 22:50, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Project Chess

I propose to transform this page in a Wikimedia Chess Project, in order to bring more order to the information and discussions.--Gengiskanhg 27 June 2005 04:42 (UTC)

If a project is a better place for discussion/voting, I support it. --Sir48 27 June 2005 07:40 (UTC)

Shouldn't such a project belong on meta not here? This page is really for discussing the content of the image page and isn't meant to be a place for collaboration on chess. BrokenSegue 27 June 2005 16:46 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know anything about meta - but it sounds right. Is it possible to move pages there? --Sir48 28 June 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Not via the move page feature. The meta is meant as a place to collaborate between wikipedia project. I'd support such a move as well because we should coordinate out chess coverage in some way. Maybe I'll make the project myself in the coming weeks (or maybe you will- the content from here doesn't need to be copied over necessarily but all of the discussion above here should be stopped because it isn't relevant to the commons). BrokenSegue 28 June 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Page name

Shouldn't this page be called WikiProject Chess, not Wikiproject Chess? — Bcat (talk | email) 14:42, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Done BrokenSegue 15:59, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)

En: Mein System improvement drive candidate

I've nominated the chess book Mein System (also known as My System) for this week's improvement drive at the English Wikipedia. Please consider voting to support it. The nomination is here. — Bcat (talk | email) 00:42, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

About Universal WikiChess Tiles at Commons

I had created this category [8] in order to contains the Universal WikiChess tiles The idea is to use this tiles from the universal wikichessboard template and make improvement to these tiles directly (rewriting the filenames) in order to get the new improvements immediatily in all the chessboard than use the template. In this case is good to make a backup of the original tiles (Chessboar number 8, Polish)--GengisKanhg (my talk) 00:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about?

Chessbase chessboard election

In order the chessbase board is the most likely I was prepared three additional board images based in it with different contrast and brightness. Lets vote for one of the images you can see here.

The winner is going to be converted in tiles (if it do not yet) and they are going to be used in the default interwikis chess template

The votation has the goal of make an election of the best board according to:

1. The monitors type (old, lcd (liquid cristal display), crt (catode ray tube), etc)
2. Conventional settings of our monitors (brightness, contrass, etc) Do not move them, use as you use it in normal use.
3. Internet browser used.
4. Personal preferences.

Explanation: The first three images was modificated with the GIMP software, the last part of its names tell the amount of Brightness or Contrass they changed.

1) Original

2) B+30

3) B+45, C+10

4) B+50, C-10

5) Black and white style

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

6) Style used in english wikipedia

	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

7) Danish Chessboard

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 position after 11.Bg5 in the game Byrne - Fischer, New York, 1956.

	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

8) Polish Chessboard

Remarks on chessboard #1, #2, #3, and #4

I am not sure whether board #1 and its derivatives (board #2, #3, and #4) would look good (or, at least, as good as the board displayed above) when cut down into tiles and reassembled to make new boards, since each dark tile is different than other dark tiles, and each light tile is different than other light tiles. 61.94.148.26 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Remarks on chessboard #8

Both English and Danish tiles are very good. Still they have two minor but important defects:

1. Light and dark squares should be less contrasted. Pieces look better on more balanced background.
2. The pieces are too large in relation to the squares and chessboard looks very crowded.

I've made new tiles based on English ones, changing background colors and enlarging squares to 44x44. Some modifications in the template have been done to achieve clear double frame. Klin 17:38, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

After "save page" I've noticed that nbsp;nbsp; in the template doesn't work and vertical margins are too thin. In pl.wiki it looks good: example. Klin 17:57, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Corrected that problem. --Sir48 6 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)

I find the idea to make the tiles larger (44) in order to make the pieces comparatively smaller very good. For the rest, I hold the following opinion:

• The contrast in board 8 has now become too small between light and dark pieces. Maybe a solution between board 7 and 8 could be found.
• Board no. 8 does not separate itself sufficiently from surrounding text. I prefer the board to have some border around it. In order to demonstrate this, I have added a border to the polish board (without changing the colours of the light tiles.) Please give your opinion on this (maybe the border should be in a lighter colour=?). On [[9]] you may see, how the Danish (7), combined Danish/Polish/ and Polish (8) boards look like with surrounding text. The combined board looks like this:

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 position after 11.Bg5 in the game Byrne - Fischer, New York, 1956.

	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

Combined Danish/Polish Chessboard

--Sir48 19:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't like "old style" shadows border, I prefer original board (8). -PioM _EN DE PL 21:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• The most important feature of chess diagrams is their legibilty. The position should be recognizable at a glance. Aggressive background (glowing colors or high contrast between the squares) and ornateness of the image simply disturb in reading it. In my attempt I designed double frame to close the image and separate it from the environment, but eliminated your decorative border as it uselessly dominates the whole picture. --Klin 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• the diagram 8 without a border is bad, because it is not separated clearly from surrounding text. The vision is being diverted from the position shown. Also, it looks more artificial compared to an ordinary board. --Sir48 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• That's the point: border optical dominates whole picture and disturb. -PioM _EN DE PL 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Votes

Please tell what type of monitor (LCD, CTR, monochrome, etc) and what internet browser do you use (mozilla firefox, netscape, i-explorer, etc)

1. I like "3": CTR, Mozilla-Firefox under GNU/Linux --Gengiskanhg 29 June 2005 02:20 (UTC)
2. 1: Firefox + IE 6 (2,3,4, 7 would also be ok) -- Tsor 18:13, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. 7; LCD and CRT, IE 6/Win2000 --Sir48 22:46, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. I'm okay with, 1, 2 6, 7 or 8 BrokenSegue 02:13, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC) (Using Firefox, CRT and Windows XP)
5. 1 or 7; CTR, Mozilla-Firefox WinXP. -- Get_It 02:29, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
6. I like 6 or 7, using Firefox on Windows on a CRT. — Bcat (talk | email) 03:21, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC) 6 and 7 are OK, 8 is my favorite, though. (I'm using Firefox on Windows on a CRT.) — Bcat (talk | email) 19:30, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
7. 1; Firefox 1.04 under WinXP on CRT --Malathion 23:04, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
8. 7: CRT, Firefox on GNU/Linux -- /Wegge 22:35, 2005 Jul 2 (UTC)
9. 8: CRT, IE and Opera under WinXP. -- Klin 7 July 2005 08:08 (UTC) (Thank you, Sir48).
10. 8; (nice and clear similar to 1 but not from commercial program (but white pices could have gradient like 1)), LCD, Mozilla Suit/Linux -PioM _EN DE PL 7 July 2005 09:11 (UTC) (1((1) is from comercial product) nice pieces and (2(nice look)(sorry I haven't known that it was from comercial product)) for board, 5 is indistinct, 6 has too striking green, 7 has hight contrast between darken brown/beige and light beige)
11. 8. It looks most clear on my CRT in Firefox 1.0.4 (Windows). But what I really really would like to see are pieces from 1 standing on 8th chessboard. Oops :( I don't have Meta account, andt this means I'm not allowed to vote, does it? I've just created my Meta account. A.J. 7 July 2005 13:02 (UTC)
12. 1 - Opera 8 under W2KPro viewed with gForce 2 MX on Elsa Ecomo 750 CRT - Blueshade 7 July 2005 10:36 (UTC)
13. 8 - Firefox, LCD on GNU/Linux. --MatthiasGor Talk 7 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)
14. 8 - CRT, Firefox 1.0.4 on Debian Linux and on MS Windows 98 -- kocio ✉ 7 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)
15. 5 and 7 - Firefox, WinXP --Sabbut 06:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
16. 7 and 8 - IE6/Firefix/WindowsXP-Joseaperez 08:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
17. 5 and 8. - (latest) Firefox, CTR, Windows. \Mike(z) 10:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
18. 1 – LCD, Firefox, WinXP Jon Harald Søby (talk, contrib) 17:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
19. 8 (1 & 7 would be OK); CRT 600x800, Firefox 1.0.4, WinXP --Julo 21:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
20. 8, 7 is horrible - I barely see the red crosse on dark brown background (I have red/green color-blindness). Taw 22:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Note:

• The winner is going to be converted in tiles in order to be used by default for the common template.

Votation are open yet, while it happens, lets watch at the current results. Only most prefered boards were computed for each one, its value is "1". If someone vote for more than one as his or her prefered boards, the vote is divide in the number of alternatives he or she had given. OKs are only for reference, they are not counted.

VOTATIONS (in progress) RESUME

ChessBoards	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
Voters
1	-	-	1.0	-	-	-	-	-
2	1.0	ok	ok	ok	-	-	ok	-
3	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0	-
4	0.2	0.2	-	-	-	0.2	0.2	0.2
5	0.5	-	-	-	-	-	0.5	-
6	-	-	-	-	-	ok	ok	1.0
7	1.0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
8	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0	-
9	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0
10	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0
11	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0
12	1.0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
13	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0
14	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0
15	-	-	-	-	0.5	-	0.5	-
16	-	-	-	-	-	-	0.5	0.5
17	-	-	-	-	0.5	-	-	0.5
18	1.0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
19	ok	-	-	-	-	-	ok	1.0
20	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1.0
Totals	4.7	0.2	1.0	0.0	1.0	0.2	3.7	9.2

Actuallized by --GengisKanhg (my talk) 23:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Actuallized by --Klin 19:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I think is time to finish the votation, Chessboard number EIGHT (8) is the winner without any other near competitor. Lets use the winner to the default universal wikitemplate and continue working improving it directly --GengisKanhg (my talk) 23:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

1. I agree, 8 is clearly the winner. — Bcat (talk | email) 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)