This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chess Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is it really Wolfgang "Pauly"? are you sure it isn't "Pauli"?

Quite sure, yes. Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist; Wolfgang Pauly (1876-1934) was a problem composer. --Camembert

It's better to float the diagram to the right to reduce the issues with text wrapping around it, especially with a variety of screen widths. this also eliminates the need for hard-coded html markup. please feel free to discuss the rationale for having it float to the left. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay w/ discussing this w/ you, but please do not edit-war w/ me counter to WP:BRD. Also I won't be able to begin discussion until later in the day. (Meanwhile, may I ask to better understand your perspective, are you a chessplayer and have reading interest in the article's content? Or is this issue where you don't play/read chess and are editor interested in format issues only? Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring, really? how many reverts do you have? yes, I play chess and I am one of the authors of the current Module:Chessboard, and find the current format impossible to read on my mobile device. Frietjes (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you dense? (I was specifically referring to WP:BRD; I guess you like to ignore that. Also, "number of reverts" doesn't define edit-warring -- counting reverts is related to WP:3RR, not edit-warring; in addition, number of reverts in other situations like BLP articles is irrelevant -- though this is not such a case.) Do you want to haggle over whether you were inappropriately reverting me, and falsely challenge that I inappropriately reverted you? Or do you want to discuss the real issue at hand? (I think you are aggressive. I see on your Talk you have anther edit-warring complaint. I don't like talking to aggressive people. It is non-collegiate and contrary to discussion philosophy of the entire WP. Do you want to wrangle about this some more?? If so, go blow.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a change that is acceptable to me (the diag needs to be on the left IMO; there are 10 candidate moves and I get neck-muscle whiplash w/ the diag on the right; it is less space efficient [on my screen which is 1280×1024] but perhaps is a workable & good solution). How does it work on your mobile device? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The puzzle is based on a 1922 342-move composition by Ottó Titusz Bláthy, which was later found to be cooked."

What does this mean? InspectorMendel (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Glossary of chess problems#cook. In this particular case, it turns out that there was a shorter solution to the composition. Edderiofer (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section about the record starts with The current record for the longest selfmate problem is a selfmate in 203, and concludes with The record for longest 7-piece selfmate problem is a 298-move problem. Shouldn't that imply the current record certainly is not a mate in 203? Abigail-IV (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking this up, the only s#298 I can find by Shinkman is this one, which appears to be cooked. The statement should be removed from the article. Edderiofer (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]