Science (control)
Chess
The wording changed a lot over the full lifetime of the page (no single overhaul date stood out). Language openings contradict each other on something important.
Something to inspect — not a judgment of bias or bad faith.
Overview
Use this briefing to choose what to inspect. The tabs contain the underlying comparisons.
Open the live English Wikipedia article ↗L1 ran on this article and exact checking did not confirm a durable rewrite. This does not mean the article never changed.
Different websites cited: 3 → 12. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Compared around the rewrite window. See Framing.
Did editors fight over it?
The page was not dominated by back-and-forth undoing. A quiet rewrite can still matter — it just means few people fought it on the page. About 11,400 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 0.9 years old or newer. 90.1% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 56.9% of what is there now (authorship is more spread out; 79 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2005-01-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Rewrite (no candidate found), Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Versions.
Not available in this export: Facts. Missing coverage is not a negative finding.
No candidate rewrite window was confirmed
The exact L1 check ran, but no candidate showed the required durable-spine drop. This is a completed negative result for that detector, not a claim that the article never changed.
Persistence-weighted changeThe share of wording lost, weighted so text that survived more snapshots counts more. by interval
Each row reports established wording lost, standing wording gained, and paired change as a replacement lead. The bar shows loss for continuity with earlier reports. Below-floor anomalies remain descriptive evidence but cannot receive exact confirmation. A coverage gap is shown descriptively but excluded from detector decisions. Candidate-window labels report the exact revision-level decision for the broader window containing that interval.
How the detector reached this state
- 1 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.No candidate signalNo measured interval crossed the detector's candidate threshold.
- 2 · Interval scoring26 intervals scoredThe bars below show persistence-weighted wording loss for each interval.
- 3 · Exact checkA revision-level test of whether a candidate window's durable spine collapsed.Not neededNo coarse candidate was sent to revision-level checking.
- 2002-07-01Loss 64.7%1,914 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2003-01-01Loss 56.0%1,800 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2003-07-01Loss 8.6%266 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2004-01-01Loss 47.6%2,381 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2005-01-01Loss 58.4%2,383 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2006-01-01Loss 23.6%892 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 69.4%7,981 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 11.1%2,423 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2009-01-01Loss 15.9%6,125 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2010-01-01Loss 3.0%1,589 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2011-01-01Loss 13.6%10,181 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2012-01-01Loss 2.6%2,334 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2013-01-01Loss 0.6%662 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2014-01-01Loss 4.8%6,770 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-01-01Loss 5.8%9,476 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 5.8%10,508 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 1.9%3,776 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 3.6%8,134 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 3.7%9,343 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 5.4%14,936 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 5.0%14,886 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 16.1%51,054 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 2.8%8,583 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 2.3%7,704 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 0.7%2,601 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 8.8%36,040 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
Which words grew or shrank?
Words that became more common or less common between the compared versions. Handy for noticing a shift in topic or tone — not a score of bias.
Comparing 2002-01-01 -> 2005-01-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history). Rough word count: 1,004 → 893. Overall: wording changed a lot.
Used more afterward
- notation0 → 7
- fritz0 → 4
- internet0 → 4
- literature0 → 4
- art0 → 3
- countries0 → 3
- mental0 → 3
- recording0 → 3
- server0 → 3
- six0 → 3
- sometimes0 → 3
- using0 → 3
Used less afterward
- move28 → 2
- check5 → 0
- diagonally5 → 0
- position5 → 0
- straight5 → 0
- below4 → 0
- given4 → 0
- intelligence4 → 0
- rank4 → 0
- square12 → 1
- player19 → 2
- arbitrary3 → 0
These are the standout words, not a full dictionary of the article. Boring markup words are filtered out. Treat this as a hint, not a conclusion.
How the footnotes changed
How the article's own footnotes changed across the rewrite: which websites and books were cited more or less. We only show the mix — we do not rate sources as good or bad.
Looking at 2002-01-01 → 2005-01-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 12 websites were cited more (or newly), 2 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 0. Different websites: 3 → 12.
Mix of citation types: — → —.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| art-of-chess.com. | 0 → 1 |
| wikisophia.org | 0 → 1 |
| chessbase.com | 0 → 1 |
| letsplaychess.com | 0 → 1 |
| chessvariants.org | 0 → 1 |
| brainking.com | 0 → 1 |
| chessclub.com | 0 → 1 |
| freechess.org | 0 → 1 |
| geocities.com | 0 → 1 |
| pathguy.com | 0 → 1 |
| fide.com | 1 → 2 |
| chess.sf.net | 0 → 1 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| handbook.fide.com | 1 → 0 |
| chess.ibm.com | 1 → 0 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
Cross-language lead comparison
How the opening of the article presents the topic in different languages. Disagreement is a reason to read carefully, not a final answer.
The three editions largely agree on core facts (rules, pieces, objective, FIDE, Steinitz as first champion, Gukesh as current champion) but diverge notably on historical framing: EN and FR disagree on the century and route by which chess reached Europe and on how far back organized competition dates (FR citing 8th-century Baghdad and an 1851 London tournament, EN citing only the 19th century). UK gives a distinctly different account of chess's European arrival (9th century via Umayyad Spain) and omits the Deep Blue/Kasparov narrative entirely, while adding extensive detail on time controls (blitz, rapid, bullet) absent from EN and FR. FR is the most concise on computer chess, lacking the detailed history EN provides.
Languages compared: en, uk, fr.
contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it
| topic | how they compare | English says | other language(s) say | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| chess reaching Europe: route and century | contradict | After its introduction to Persia, it spread to the Arab world and then to Europe (no specific century given for European arrival). “After its introduction to Persia, it spread to the Arab world and then to Europe.” | UK: chess reached Europe in the 9th century via the Umayyad conquests in Spain. FR: introduced to southern Europe from the 10th century by the Arabs. | EN, UK, FR |
| origin century of chaturanga/chess | differ | Chess history dates back to the emergence of chaturanga in 7th-century India. “The recorded history of chess dates back to the emergence of chaturanga in 7th-century India.” | FR does not specify a century for chaturanga's origin, only stating it is the Persian shatranj's ancestor from classical India, with uncertain place of invention. “on ignore où il fut inventé exactement. Il dérive du shatranj, qui lui-même est la version perse du chaturanga de l'Inde classique.” | EN, FR |
| standardization timeline of modern rules | agree | Modern rules emerged in Europe at the end of the 15th century, becoming standardized and gaining universal acceptance by the end of the 19th century. “becoming standardized and gaining universal acceptance by the end of the 19th century” | UK states rules were formed in modern shape at the end of the 15th century, with final standardization occurring in the 19th century (similar timeline but framed as 'final standardization' rather than 'universal acceptance'). “У сучасному вигляді шахи сформувались наприкінці 15 століття, остаточно правила стандартизовано в 19 столітті.” | EN, UK |
| history of organized competition | differ | Organized chess arose in the 19th century, with international competitions governed by FIDE. “Organized chess arose in the 19th century.” | FR traces competitive chess back much further, mentioning traces at the court of Harun al-Rashid in the 8th century, and cites the first modern-era tournament in London 1851 during the Great Exhibition. “On en trouverait trace à la cour d'Hâroun ar-Rachîd au VIIIe siècle. Le premier tournoi de l'ère moderne a lieu à Londres lors de l'Exposition universelle de 1851.” | EN, FR |
| computer chess milestones | missing elsewhere | Details Deep Blue's 1997 victory over Garry Kasparov as the first computer win against a reigning World Champion, and notes chess is not a solved game. “In 1997, Deep Blue became the first computer to win a match against a reigning World Champion when it defeated Garry Kasparov.” | UK does not mention Deep Blue or Kasparov at all. FR only briefly notes that computer programs are now far superior to human players, without historical detail. “Aujourd'hui les programmes informatiques d'échecs sont incomparablement meilleurs que les joueurs humains.” | EN, UK, FR |
| time controls and game formats (blitz, rapid, bullet) | missing in English | not mentioned | UK provides detailed explanation of time control formats: classical, rapid, blitz, bullet, and increment systems, including specific time examples. | EN, UK |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
Versions we used
These are the exact public Wikipedia versions behind the checks on this page. Open any link to read the original. Wikidata item: Q718.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | saved | Chess | open version 1363948440 | 2026-07-13T14:01:55Z | 81,282 |