Talk:Capablanca chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chess (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Gothic and Grand Chess[edit]

I think Gothic and Grand Chess are misplaced here. As these chess variant are quite popular, both of them need a separate article. Even if they will be stub-articles initially, I expect them to grow. For example, German version of Wikipeia has a lengthy article on Gothic Chess. Any objections if I do this? Andreas Kaufmann 06:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As nobody objected, I moved Grand Chess and Gothic Chess to separate articles. Andreas Kaufmann 15:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, this is a good idea to do. Samboy 01:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Well how about Bird's chess? Shouldn't it get its own page? It's almost like Gothic.
Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Popularity[edit]

Has this game reached any popularity? Are there tournaments? Any informed opinions on how gameplay differs from normal chess? --Apoc2400 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been no tournaments for Capablanca Chess, per se, but there have been tournaments that include Capablanca chess. For example, The Chessvariants.org current tournament includes Capablanca Random chess. Just to clarify 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency[edit]

In the opening paragraph of the article, a Capablanca chess variant is defined as being played upon either a 10x10 or 10x8 board. If Energizer Chess, an 8x8 board game, is to be included, then the definition needs to be changed. Should we presumptuously change the definition? Otherwise, it should be excluded. -AceVentura

As the author of Energizer Chess, I think I shouldn't be meddling in to modify this page. However, since the sub-section is called "Variants inspired by Capablanca Chess", and Energizer is very much so, I don't see why it doesn't belong. In an unrelated note, also games like Capablanca Shatranj (see the chess variants pages might belong into this list. --Sibahi 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Capablanca tried only 8x10 and 10x10 boards, so the introduction is correct. However, "Variants inspired by Capablanca Chess" can also have different sizes, this is not a criteria whether include them or not. Andreas Kaufmann 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A Place For Games Related To Capa[edit]

The games played upon 10x10 and 8x8 boards cannot be Capa variants proper (like all of the others). [See the first sentence of the article.] So, they do not belong in the "predate" or "postdate" sections. However, related games such as Grand chess and Energizer Chess could go appropriately into a new section of this page entitled "Variants Related To Capablanca Chess" or some such. Also, a new page could be created for Energizer Chess if it is considered sufficiently noteworthy. Please take a responsible, constructive course of action because GC & EC are unacceptable to me in the "postdate" section. --InfoCheck

I renamed the section to Variants inspired by Capablanca chess. Now it is fine to have Grand chess and Energizer chess there. Andreas Kaufmann 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "inspiration". This is about dates- whether or not a variant predates or postdates Capablanca Chess. The original section title was poor. It had no sense of balance with the title of the "predate" section. [I hope you don't change it, also.] So, I improved it. Having Grand chess and Energizer Chess in this section garbles it up from the viewpoint of clarity of classification.

If I invented a game similar to checkers but was somehow "inspired by Capablanca Chess" when I did so, why could not I also rightfully include it within the section title you prefer by this poorly-defined standard? --InfoCheck

The term 'postdate' doesn't make any sense for me. For example, Chess960 also "postdates" Capablanca chess. Should we include it here as well? And yes, if you invent a checker game, somehow related to Capablanca chess, it should be refered to from this article as well. Andreas Kaufmann 06:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Andreas Kaufmann. The term "inspired by" makes more sense for the reader than "postdate", since the point of the section is to refer to other games in the Capablanca family. Most of these are considered to be improvements by their inventor over the original Capablanca Chess game. Besides, both Grand Chess and Energizer Chess postdate Capablanca Chess. (I have refrained from making modifications to that section since I am referred to as the inventor of Energizer.) --Sibahi 11:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, what do you folks think of the new section? Note that it was not possible to give a graphic representation for Grand chess and Energizer Chess on this page, comparable to that given the other proper, 10x8 variants, without cluttering-up the "postdate" section until this new section was created.

Sure, it is more work to restructure the article properly but this accommodates two significant games related to Capablanca Chess that do not fit neatly into any other categories. Of course, everyone is welcome to improve this greatly- just please don't revert this article to its previous, primitive state and destroy all of my good work. --InfoCheck

Seirawan chess[edit]

Thanks Sibahi for finding information about Seirawan chess! I think this is a major event in chess variant world. The last time when a chess grandmaster introduced a new chess variant was in 1996 (Chess960 by Fisher). Andreas Kaufmann 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to continue to add on variants of varying dimension (10x10, and 8x8) and somehow try to retro-fit an explanation that it is "derived from" Capablanca.

1. There were no citations for these claims.
2. If the board size is not the same, it really is not a modification of a game specificially designed for an 80 square board.
3. While it is notable that a GM invented a variant, it does not "automatically follow" that it is linked to this particular page.

GothicChessInventor 23:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


The term Capablanca Chess refers to a family of variants that include the Chancellor and the Archbishop. And, as you should know, Capablanca didn't specifically design his game for the 8x10 board, but also experimented with a 10x10 board. Yasser Sierawan, incidentally, does refer to Capablanca in the articles written about his game, and he, as well, considers his game an improvement. --Sibahi 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Stealth chess[edit]

I added it not as it is a variant of chess using an 8x10 board, not because it is directly linked to Capablanca chess. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Variants inspired by Capablanca Chess[edit]

Have the images changed, or is the diagram to the right of this section simply misleading? A board *full* of (64) pieces? Can't find a decent historical page to see if this has always been the case... 86.147.154.138 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability Of Energizer Chess[edit]

I do not question the notability of Grand chess and Seirawan chess which have their own Wikipedia pages and rightly so. However, Energizer Chess was unilaterally introduced onto this page by its inventor Sibahi. It does not have a Wikipedia page of its own nor does it sufficiently merit one. Although it is classified correctly within the "variants which use a different board" section, I doubt that this virtually unknown, new game deserves mention upon this page ... yet. At least, there have been tournaments and exhibitions for Grand chess and Seirawan chess. --BenWillard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The only source appears to be a wiki, which doesn't meet WP:RS requirements, and the source is not independent of the creator. It should be removed. Quale 20:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If you reviewed the history, I didn't add Energizer Chess. Samboy did. I don't have to say about the matter, because of conflict of interest. but I would just like to add that the Chess Variants Pages is not a wiki. Only the posters may edit their posts (aside from admins, of course.) This response is just for the record, as they say, not because I want to agree or disagree with the edit. --Sibahi 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I never looked at who made the original edit because it doesn't matter—Who added it to this article is irrelevant when considering the adequacy of the source. By source I was not referring to the editor who added Engergizer Chess to the article, but rather the external link http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSenergizerchess that the editor used to support the edit. The site www.chessvariants.org may not be a wiki, but didn't you write the page that Samboy used as a reference? Wikis are not the only impermissible sources: most blogs and web forums also don't make the grade. These sorts of sources can be used in wikipedia for some purposes, but they should almost never be used as the sole source, as was the case here. It looks to me like 1) www.chessvariants.org doesn't meet WP:RS for most purposes no matter who adds it to an article, and 2) the particular page cited was not created independently of the inventor of Energizer Chess and so is not an independent source. If either of those points is wrong, feel free to correct the record. Quale 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't answering you with the first remark. I was merely responding to the claim BenWillard made that I added my game here. As mentioned, I didn't. (Also, please don't change my formatting again.) --Sibahi 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for incorrectly attributing the introduction of Energizer Chess to Sibahi instead of Samboy. The edit history of this page has been quite extensive in recent weeks. So, I based my remark upon (faulty) memory instead of verification. --BenWillard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS and Titles[edit]

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles we read that “In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.), every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as defined below).” That in mind, I have, for most Capablanca variants, given the name with all words capitalized (“Gothic Chess”, “Grotesque Chess”, “Ladorean Chess”, etc.) after verifying that the page describing the variant in question is capitalized thusly.

A couple of exceptions:

  • While Christian Feeling does call it “Grand Chess” on his web pages, we call it Grand chess here, so I kept the incorrect capitalization.
  • The official title for my own Schoolbook chess is “Schoolbook”, so go ahead and call it “Schoolbook chess” if you must (but I probably prefer “Schoolbook Chess”).
  • Since “Modern Capablanca Random chess” doesn’t name itself in its description page, I have retained the lower case “c”, even though this does go against Wikipedia’s Manual of Style.

The only reason I left Wiki-semi retirement to fix this is because Embassy chess was a redlink (which I’m about to make a redirect) when these titles were changed to make “chess” lowecase. Samboy (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Samboy:, I would like to get in discussion with you! (I know you are WP semi-retired, but would you please consider?) I'm the editor who changed Embassy Chess → Embassy chess, but believe me it wasn't a "misguided attempt" to do anything other than a frustrated attempt to shoot for consistency after several years now of seeing an inconsistent mess. The deal is the chess variant names are a hodge-podge of sometimes cap'ing "chess", sometimes not, but mostly not. That doesn't make sense a lot of times, and I wasn't for sure on any MOS that really spells out what really is right or wrong. (Do you think the MOS does? E.g. is any chess variant considered a creative work and therefore word "chess" s/b cap'd? That would make a clean way forward to straightening out the messes currently on the WP, even if it means article renames, I'm willing to do that legwork to set it right. But is it right for sure?)
E.g. personally, I tend to favor cap'ing chess on chess variant names where the name is part of the game name. See here where the article I created, Double Chess, was countermanded by a 7-yr experience user who took extra step on the WP to rename it to Double chess. (I didn't contest that change, because it seems the predominant convention on the WP, to keep word "chess" lower-case. And because I knew there is currently an inconsistent mess all over the place on WP too.)
Do you think I was right, that game names that include word "chess" in the identifiable game name, s/ cap "Chess"? But what about for game names that do *not* include word "chess" in the identifiable game name, then if word chess is used in conjunction with the name, it should be lower-case? (In your invented game, the game name is "Schoolbook" and word "chess" is really not part of the identifiable game name. Since the overwhelming pattern on WP now is lower-case in nearly all cases, clearly "Schoolbook chess" would be the preferred WP name, and I presume you think it consistent w/ MOS too since "Schoolbook" is the creative work title, but, you still prefer "Schoolbook Chess" when word "chess" is used in conjunction!)
You see how complex and confusing all of this can be! One way out of this that I think is filled with potholes, is a guideline to cap or not cap according to how the inventor expresses the name. (Strangely, I see several issues that logically flow from that, creating sticky messes. I can ennumerate later perhaps if it is relevant. For example, how significant if the inventor caps "Chess" when refering to his/her game, when in same article the inventor uses "Pawn", "Bishop", etc., when we never cap piece names by already established convention on the WP!?)
Anyway, can you discuss this with me? (We are probably the only two who care on English WP!?!?) I think the discussion really belongs on WT:CHESS though, since it affects all Category:Chess variants chess variant articles. But here or User talk or Email is fine by me too.
Just to show I prefer "Chess" cap'd in the game names, you'll see I created articles Falcon-Hunter Chess, Beirut Chess, Parallel Worlds Chess, Cross Chess, Three-Man Chess, Tri-Chess, Masonic Chess, Triangular Chess, Wolf Chess, Rhombic Chess, Wildebeest Chess, and Millennium 3D Chess. And several variant articles I created do not have "chess" in the game name: Congo (chess variant), Balbo's Game, Apocalypse (chess variant), Stratomic, Rollerball (chess variant), Chesquerque, Chessence, Dragonfly (chess variant), Troy (chess variant), Chad (chess variant), Dragonchess (started from stub), and 2000 A.D. (chess variant). I'd like to start renaming articles, starting with Alice chessAlice Chess, but again, this crosses grain with the preponderance of WP articles preferring the lower-case, so I'd have to have solid policy or a consensus one would think. (The reason I changed Embassy Chess → Embassy chess in Capablanca chess is due to giving in to the preponderance of convention already on WP, and, there was a great deal of inconsistency in the article, so as you can see it was a frustrated attempt to strive finally for some consistency, in spite of my personal disagreement with what is currently prevalent on the WP.)
I you can discuss, I'd prefer the discuss over at WT:CHESS, so if/when I start renaming articles, there's something to point to re Project (community) discussion & consensus, and not just on this single article Talk. Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. A side issue is Scholar's Mate or Scholar's mate, Fool's Mate or Fool's mate. But that's another can of worms, I won't try and open up! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Sam, if you take a look at Chess variant, you will see that other than the game names that I have added with cap on "Chess", all other game names without exception (or nearly without exception) are lower-case "chess".
Just to show how perverse the topic has potential to be, Hexagonal chess is correct, right, because it is not a work of art but a generic description of a class of variants, yes? Yet, "Glinki's Hexagonal Chess" is really the game name and work creation, but you won't find it that way on WP, only "Glinski's Hexagonal chess" or "Glinski's hexagonal chess". (Which is right?) This is the type of thing too I'd like to clear up, please help, thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess a logical question is whether a board game invention falls under "composition" as described in the MOS: "In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) [...]", I'm not sure it does, and if it does, perhaps it is a good thing if the MOS is updated to reflect game titles specifically!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that as a style issue, "chess" should be capitalized. I decided to check some reference books; The Oxford Companion to Chess does not capitalize it but David Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants does. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, both Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants capitalize word "chess" in *all* chess variant game names having the word. (So, why is the WP predominantly using lower-case on "chess" for chess variant names and article names? Are the Pritchard encyclopedias a reasonable basis for undertaking a project to capitalize "chess" in all chess variant names having the word?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Harry Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess and Edward Brace's "An Illustrated Dictonary of Chess" both captialize "chess". Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me give Ihardlythinkso a big thank you for their contributions. In particular, I like the Trishogi, Hexshogi, Masonic Shogi, Space Shogi, Masonic Chess, Cross Chess, Triangular Chess, Tri-Chess, and Three-Man Chess articles. In terms of capitalization, in the end, I really don't care that much how we capitalize the names of variants. I think naming them with a capital in Chess is better and more consistent with WP:MOS, but it could go the other way. I mainly was annoyed that Embassy chess was a redlink (link to non-existent page) more than anything else, but I've already made the redirect. Samboy (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)