Talk:Chess variant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Chess variant was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
March 23, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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.
 
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Chess variant:

Add articles for recognized chess variants:

with the diagram templates preferably.

Add articles for:

Expand articles for:

Create diagram templates for:

Simpsons Chess[edit]

i dont see Simpsons Chess on this page i played it as a kid all the time

Simpsons chess, if I remember correctly, is just the "regular" version of chess with Simpsons characters replacing the normal pieces. As such, it wouldn't be a "variant" and so it doesn't belong in this article. -Abcfox 06:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Zillions of Games[edit]

From the text; "Since the creation in 1998 of Zillions of Games, a Windows compatible program which enables non-experts to quickly design and playtest chess variants using an AI opponent, the total number has been increasing constantly and rapidly." I think this statement is misleading in that it assumes the increase in chess variants is directly tied to the computer program Zillions of Games. While ZoG deserves mention, it is not, in my opinion as a variant designer, the reason for "the total number has been increasing constantly and rapidly." Rather, I suspect the existence of the website http://www.chessvariants.com/ has had more to do with this increase than ZoG. In otherwords, ZoG has had a lot of existing variants translated into it's own program rather than being a breeding ground for new variants that then become popular. neoliminal

Although many chess variants obviously predate the existence of the ZOG program (1998), the chess variant pages is mainly, merely a reference resource for playing chess variants manually- not a powerful set of tools for inventing, playtesting, refining chess variants (as well as automatically playing an AI opponent with rules enforced). Of course, your personal methods as a game designer may differ from other creative people and considerable time is typically required for something new to become popular. Nonetheless, the ZOG program has been a great catalyst to the development of many new games (in addition to the implementation of many old games), some of which may be of higher quality than even possible for popular, traditional chess variants. The statement rings true in correctly ascribing cause-and-effect to my experience and so, is not misleading to me. Of course, neither your opinion nor mine is being sought. The fact is the growth in the number and variety of chess variants in recent years cannot likely be attributed to any other event or development than the advent of the ZOG program. --AceVentura
The fact is the growth in the number and variety of chess variants in recent years cannot likely be attributed to any other event or development than the advent of the ZOG program. Again, I disagree. Can you site some proof of this? I suppose we could take a sampling of chess variants before ZoG and after, and see how many were created using ZoG or were simply translated into ZoG after being created elsewhere first. This may be a confusion of cause and effect. I bet there were tons of good variants that were added to ZoG because it's a great medium for new variant... but that doesn't mean ZoG caused these variants to be created. I guess I would like some evidence to support your claim.

No evidence. The correlation could be completely dismissed as an astonishing coincidence ... if you wish to belittle the significant contribution and stimulation the ZOG program has held for chess variant development since 1998. Personally, it has been quite valuable to me. Moreover, many others in the chess variant community have made similar remarks in various forums. --AceVentura

I suspect that the group you refer to as "the chess variant community" is actually the ZoG using community. Since you are part of this community what you aren't seeing are the variant creation efforts which do not use nor rely on ZoG. From such a perspective it would indeed appear that ZoG was the reason behind any increase since you're seeing all the development of Zog based games and any conversion of variants designed without ZoG that someone has created a ZoG file for. neoliminal 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any practical way for an independent arbiter (for instance, a Unix or Lunix user, perhaps) to evaluate the claims the ZoG using community has made? Although there may be at least one website where ZoG has achieved a level of preeminence, that's a far cry from universal acceptance. I don't wish to belittle the achievements of the author behind ZoG, but not everyone has access to a Windows compatible environment to try it out, and see if it does, indeed, facilitate - or even automate - creation of "new chess variants" never before seen anywhere else.
If there isn't evidence, the statement shouldn't be there. Wikipedia should be based on verifiable sources, not on what we personally think. Mdwh 01:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Such positive statements about the capabilities of the ZOG program are based upon verifiable sources. The way to investigate is to get a modern NT-based version of MS Windows and the ZOG program. Then, you can see the evidence for yourself instead of lazily and irresponsibly deleting the truth. People with inadequate knowledge and experience should be humble and step lightly here. --AceVentura

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Downloading a program and seeing how good it is comes under original research - and I'm not sure how one could come to the conclusion that it has helped chess variant growth simply by looking at the program itself. I'll put a citation requested tag for now, but it doesn't look good based on reasoning put forward so far. Mdwh 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is a reference:

Currently, 1430 games (most of them new) have been written and published expressly for the Zillions Of Games program since 1998. This number could be regarded as compelling evidence of recent growth attributable to the introduction of a program. --AceVentura

How many of those are Chess variants? How many Chess variants are there that are not produced with Zillions Of Games? Mdwh 00:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Check www.chessvariants.org for an idea. Hundreds of games there are not implemented into Zillions for the very simple reason that no-one has implemented them! Even the variants on this website are not all there is. It's the easiest thing in the world to invent a chess variant. (Just add a piece or a square somewhere and you have one, in a sense.) --Sibahi 09:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Zillions Of Games ... has helped chess variant growth. I doubt that this statement is true. Since nobody provided a reference for it, I will remove it. Andreas Kaufmann 20:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As a result a large number of chess variants were implemented for Zillions of Games.
The reference already provided indicates that the ZOG program (by enabling people without programming skill to create chess variants) has increased the number of new chess variants since its introduction. Indisputably, the ZOG program has increased the number of ZOG chess variants (est. several hundred). Does anyone doubt that ZOG chess variants exist or that they are a legitimate type of chess variants? Therefore, it has also increased the number of chess variants (of various types) to some extent. I guess the simple arithmetic concepts of greater than and lesser than or transitive logic are too difficult for a few editors to grasp.
In any case, the quoted statement is correct, more conservative and it seems to satisfy editors on both sides of this argument (including myself). --InfoCheck


The popularity of Zillions-of-Games is in stark contrast to its actual performance. For example if you click here you can see it went 6 wins, 7 losses, 1 draw to finish in 5th out of 8 places in a 2004 tournament featuring dedicated programs. The 3 programs it outperformed were EGM 0.1, a program only 2 weeks old from Poland, CapaGNU Modified which was Bill Angel's DOS program from the 1980's, and Max Gothic, a program from Germany that allows people to play against one another over the internet that also has a 2-ply search function.

Zillions is a great prototyping tool, no doubt. But it is just that. Strong programs are what generate more interest in a game, especially a variant. Talented players then try to raise the bar in their own play to outdo the software. When you beat a program game after game after game, like whatever is offered in the Zillions engine, you don't say "Wow I really want to learn more about this game!" ChessHistorian 00:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"In 1998 Zillions of Games software program was created. It enables non-programmers to design and playtest most types of chess variants using an AI opponent. As a result a large number of chess variants were implemented for Zillions of Games.[1]". - This sentence is pretty meaningless, to me it just looks like the author of Zillions of Games wants to use Wikipedia to promote his product. ZoG is mentioned further down in the article. Why mention it here too? This should be removed. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 78.69.36.195 (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Zillions of Games by Fergus Duniho.

Patt-Schach[edit]

Someone should add Patt-schach to the article. See http://www.chessvariants.org/diffsetup.dir/pattsch.html Krakatoa 16:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain, why there "are no legal moves"? Why couldn't the foremost pawns moved? I really don't understand at all. 82.130.21.5 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

White pawns move up on the diagram (i.e. most of them one step before queening) and black move down. This is why there is no legal moves. Andreas Kaufmann 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


Derivation of Capablanca's Chess[edit]

We see several games listed here that were derived from Capablanca's Chess. But wasn't Capabalanca's Chess (1924) derived from Bird's Chess (1874), and wasn't Bird's chess derived from Carrera's Chess (1617)? From my understanding, Capablanca fixed a bad feature in Bird's board by swapping locations of the Bishop and Archbishop on the queenside, and the locations of the Bishop and Chancellor on the Kingside. Yet nobody seems to acknowledge this anywhere in talking about Capablanca. Comments?

ChessHistorian 00:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a really good point, my understanding is that Bird's board came first and the extent to which Capablanca fixed the "bad position" may be in doubt - if you're researching also remember that Bird consistently used different terminology, I think referring to the Chancellor as "guard". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookworm Harvard (talkcontribs) 03:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Siamese Chess[edit]

At my school we invented a variant where two members of a "team" are playing two games simultaneously. Whenever a capture is made, one player can pass the piece to his teammate,who can place it anywhere on the board other than on top of another piece. When game ends, the captured king is passed to the teamate, so that he has two kings and is harder to defeat. the game is onlyover once all of one team's Kings are captured. Is this worth adding?

It is already there, see Bughouse chess. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-Notable Variants[edit]

It seems that all non-notable variants (by Wikipedia standards) should fairly be removed from this main page based upon whether or not they have their own Wikipedia pages. I consider this a valid acid test. If a Wikipedia page is created later for an individual game (which successfully defies any attempt to delete it on the grounds of not being notable), then this would justify its description upon this page being restored. If Andreas Kaufmann and others are in agreement, then I will carry the needed cleanup he started thru to its completion. A lot of people have been putting a lot of clutter on this main page for a long time and some of them have been successful ... thusfar. --BenWillard —Preceding comment was added at 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all notable variants has own pages, so they should stay here. I already removed all not notable variants, no further cleanup is needed. There are only two variants where I was not sure if they notable or not. I put a request for citation there. If no citation is added, I will remove them as well. However, there are some variants without citation, for which I simply didn't have time to add one. If you doubt about there notability, please discuss first. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, just existing of web-page for the game, created by its author doesn't qualify it to be notable. A very good criteria for notability is if the variant present in The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. This book is just recently printed and probably all notable chess variants can be found there. Other source of notable variants is Variant Chess Magazine. All variants described there are notable as well. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I remain skeptical that chess variants lacking a Wikipedia page and ANY dedicated web site anywhere in the world (other than a standard entry upon The Chess Variant Pages and/or the Zillions Of Games web sites) could possibly be notable (by Wikipedia standards).

The chess variant references you mention, although excellent, reflect the personal editorial biases, specialization, tastes and interests of the editors who wrote the aforementioned book and magazine.

I still strongly advocate a more thorough cleanup in strict accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Anyone who has more substantive reasons for keeping any of the following "low-profile" games needs to state them soon: Patt-schach, Upside-down chess, Pawns game, Peasant's revolt, Weak!, Doublewide chess, Infinite chess, Lord Loss chess, Millenium chess, Admiral's (or Baron's) chess, Benedict chess, Builder's chess, Double Domination Chess, Guard chess, Hierarchical chess, Refusal chess, Replacement chess, Rifle chess, Jedi Knight chess, No Stress Chess, Schrödinger's chess, Synchronous chess, Zonal chess, Anti-king chess, ChessWar.

--BenWillard

Any of variants found in Pritchard are automatically notable by Wikipedia standards. Most of variants you listed can be found in this book, please don't remove them before checking Pritchard's encyclopeida. The criterias you mentioned ...chess variants lacking a Wikipedia page and ANY dedicated web site anywhere in the world... are not relevant if it should be included or not. What is important is whether it is described in some of reliable sources, like Pritchard's encyclopedia. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Since you own Pritchard's Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and I do not own it (or even wish to), I will defer to your judgment on which marginal games shall stay.

Two parting observations though:

1. In a world of over 6 billion people with internet access available in most nations, where is the single fan (that allegedly exists) required to create a web page dedicated to any of these "low-profile" games hiding?

2. The Classified Encyclopedia Of Chess Variants was entirely the work of one man, DB Pritchard, who is recently deceased. I have no assurance that his choices for inclusion of games within this reference book were not totally arbitrary, unilateral and selfish. Consequently, it would be far preferable if you could list more than one "reliable" source, in this case, for these "low-profile" games.

--BenWillard —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, notability of many chess variants can be checked also without using Pritchard's encyclopedia. As one example, I take Guard chess listed above. If you check the article by Hans Bodlaender, you will see 2 references for it. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail/Nom removal[edit]

Because this is a list, rather than an article, it cannot reach Good Article status. The correct place to list this page is at Featured List Candidates. Thanks. Nikki311 16:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pheasant[edit]

I have played a further variant on peasant's revolt called Pheasant, where one player has eight pawns and a king, the other has a king and two knights, however I can't find any reference to it with a quick google search, if anyone feels like looking it up... though I suppose that this is proof enough of it's non=notability. SirEelBiscuits (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Shuffle[edit]

Why is Shuffle Chess not mentioned. Chess960 is a specification of Fischer Chess which is a specification of Shuffle Chess. I do not understand why it is absent.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Knightmare Chess Demotion.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Knightmare Chess Demotion.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Upside-down chess image vs. definition mis-match[edit]

The picture of an upside down chess board, and the definition description do not match. That is to say in the layout as in the image, the pawns definitely cannot immediately eat an opposing piece. On the other hand, if the definition would be the correct one for the game, wouldn't the first move forcedly be to eat a pawn with the king, as it would be threatened by two pawns...? Hm. Maybe the definition is incorrect. In any case either the image or game definition needs to be clarified/corrected. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the definition now, the diagram was right. If in doubt you can also check the given reference for this variant. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Courier Chess[edit]

I am about to start the article on Courier Chess. Any sources, etc., and anyone to help me? Or whether or not I should even start?

Note: I don't know German, and the draft holding place will be in my sandbox.

Thanks! --Ernest lk lam (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the Courier Chess website. Rick Knowlton would be a good resource for information on this game. DavidJHowe (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Internet servers to play chess variants[edit]

Hi. I added a new server for play Chess variants, but was cataloged like SPAM. The server is perfectly functional. What conditions is needed for enter to the list? Silvioq (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:EXT has guidelines about external links. That may answer your question. Bubba73 (talk), 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the site can enter. opengames dot com dot ar bar en. There are 3 variants of chess (Knight Just, Retired chess and Benedict Chess). Retired chess is a simple and rare game. My father invented this game many years ago and the game was played in some friend groups. Silvioq (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the place for such things, but www.chessvariants.org accepts all such ideas. Bubba73 (talk), 14:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand. But I return to original question ... What condition is needed for enter to Internet server list? Popularity? Site age? Users quantity? Silvioq (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Relevant policies are in WP:EXT, WP:NOTE, WP:VER, and WP:RS. Bubba73 (talk), 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

ChessVariants.org[edit]

Note: if you have invented a chess variant, www.chessvariants.org is a better place for it than Wikipedia. Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

a couple suggestions from famous players[edit]

that perhaps should be mentioned in article are 1)Making stalemate a loss for the stalemated player. This was suggested by CHO'D Alexander and maybe other people.It would considerably reduce the number of draws, since, for example, pawn and also rook and pawn endgames are frequently draws because it's easy to force being stalemated. Related, but I don't know if it's been suggested by anyone, is making perp. check a loss for checked player.2)Emmanuel Lasker suggested eliminating castling.Rich (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Three variants I'm interested in[edit]

are 1)Switching initial locations of knights and bishops, which, as a child, Ludek Pachman was mistakenly taught as standard chess.2)On White's first turn, she gets 1 move as usual, on Black's first turn(after White's first turn), he gets two moves in a row. From then on play is as in standard chess. {I'm sure both 1 and 2 have been suggested by many people besides me.}3) Possibly original to me:Combining variants 1 and 2.Rich (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

1) This and few other similar variations are covered in Displacement chess. 2) I fear that this would often just mean change of color, e.g. 1.e3 (1.e4 is bad because of 1...d5, exd5) 1...e5, d5 and we have French defense with changed colors. 3) Certainly combining variants, you can create unlimited number of other variants. However, such combinations are not covered here unless there is something special about them. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
About 1): Ralph Betza has considered each of the 6 possible arrangements of pieces (for a1/b1/c1: RNB, RBN, NRB, NBR, BRN, BNR), and has concluded that RNB (FIDE chess) is the best, RBN (your suggestion, as well as many others') is the second-best, and BNR (Fianchetto chess) is the third-best. NRB he ranks as worst. Double sharp (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Shatar sittuyin and such not being played anymore?[edit]

Should we put in a section on thouse and other national chess variants not being played as much as western chess? Do to certain factors like the popularity of western chess and other things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.39.107 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Xiangqi - China. still played

Jungle (or animal chess) - China. still played

Banqi (or Chinese Half chess) - China. still played

Chandraki - Tibet. not played due to tibet not having a chess

Shogi - Japan (see also shogi variants). still played

Shatar - Mongolia. not played due to former CCCP (ussr) forcing western chess

Hiashatar - Mongolia same as above

Janggi - Korea. still played

Main Chator - Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines. not played anymore

Makruk - Thailand. still played

Samantsy - Madagascar not played anymore

Senterej - Ethiopia not played anymore

Sittuyin - Burma. only played in the north

Ouk Chatrang - Cambodia still played but loosing popularity to western chess

Rek Chess - Cambodia ouk more popular

Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.39.107 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Bishop Picture[edit]

The picture of the black bishop on a white space looks fuzzier and different from all the other pictures of pieces. Is there someway to fix/amend this?

FinalZero (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hyper chess[edit]

Which one? ヒュー

Diagram Uniformity[edit]

With fairy pieces, I find that several share letters. For example, the S is used for both the ship in Chaturaji, and the inverted knight. Is there a possibility of making this uniform? I can make any required pieces, but most are available. I've started such a plan on my userspace here, but I'm not sure where to go, or to make it useful for diagram creators. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 10:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sniper Chess[edit]

I belive that sniper chess should be included in this article. It is played normamly, but pieces don't have to move to take pieces. I will add a section about this if no one is aganst it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.157.187 (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There is already entry for this as "Rifle chess" (also known as Shooting chess or Sniper chess). Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

schizo-chess[edit]

I was looking for "schizo-chess" ... play as normal but on a capture reverse colors and play next move as opponent.. win on your color, usually by carefully calculated combination where you mate on your color... note- if your move after capture is not a capture you end up "being" your opponent ie possibly at a disadvantage.. useful with rotating board. Were these actually manufactured?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.168.11 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It isn't in the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, so I don't have a reference for it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Random Known-Opening Chess[edit]

I would have a chess variant in my mind, I would name it Random Known-Opening Chess:

A balanced selection of 1024 equal openings from the ECO (Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings) is randomly chosen, avoiding specific opening preparation, and saving opening theory.

The main problem is how to find such equal openings. However Martin Thoresen (author of the website TCEC closed in July 2011) has used a database of about 800 drawn GM games as such equal openings (considering its first 10 moves and roughly testing the equality by computer programs) to let play strong computer programs in tournaments between themselves.

It could be named also "Chess1024" on the analogy of "Chess960" for the Fischer Random Chess (a very liked chess variant too, although it doesn't save opening theory), and also to distinguish "Random Known-Opening Chess" from "Random Opening Chess", a completely different chess variant.

Another name could be "Random KO Chess" since KO is the acronym for both Known-Opening and Knockout, in fact this variant could be useful also as blitz game tiebreak, to not waste time in recalling variations.

I've posted this variant also in Wikibooks: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Chess/Variants — Preceding unsigned comment added by PCMorphy72 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Makarenko chess[edit]

This variant is missing from the list: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/39347/makarenko-chess 80.99.123.187 (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There are so many that we can't list them all. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Chess Dungeon[edit]

Appears to be self-promotion of self-published, commercial product. Identified as "A Trading Card Game" on the commercial packaging. Could find no reliable sources, Chess Dungeon was previously removed through AfD. IMO WP is being exploited as advertising venue, this is pure WP:COI. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear babies, don´t cry, go to the mother for a milk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prilin (talkcontribs) 03:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Prilin instead of leaving insults, wouldn't your time be better spent blanking User pages, blanking Wikipedia pages, and blanking articles, as you are prone to do? (Baby protests because is not happy! Poor thing!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done (Removed.) Ditto Barca – a commercial product/website w/ no basis for notability. The corresponding article Barca board game s/ also be removed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Cubic Chess by Pribylinec[edit]

Prilin, why not create an entry in the article for Cubic Chess? Do you want help with it? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that anybody want help me create the article. Cubic chess is my best chess variant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prilin (talkcontribs) 04:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I have started the article at Cubic chess. There are more details to add of course. You should consider adding your photo of the cubes from your website http://www.cubiccheckers.com/en/dama/ to Wikipedia Commons. (It would make a nice lede image.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, but I do´t understand, why you concetrate on the first version of CC. In this time a starting position is the same as in orthochess. Unfortunately I do´t know to add an atractive photo as on my web page. I please to change photo with 10 cubes to the picture on this adrese: kostkové šachy Mensa (on Google). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prilin (talkcontribs) 14:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I see you abandoned earlier versions to evolve your game. Yes, I based beginning article on Cubic Chess in ECV. The reason for confusion, a game = (its name) + (its rules). (When you changed rules *and* name to "Virtual Chess", it made a new game, not "Cubic Chess" anymore. I assume name reverted to "Cubic Chess" and VC issue 48 May 2005 are current rules? Okay I need to study this; meantime the article is a bit of a mess.) We should move this discussion now to Talk:Cubic chess. If you send to me the cubes photo via WP Email, I will add to Commons, be sure to mention what kind license to assign. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Guideline for variants[edit]

Am becoming foggy on this. WP says notability applies to whether an article exists or not, but does not govern article content. (Listed variants are content.) Is there clear understanding what criteria to apply for inclusion? Thx for feedback. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Am concluding, that notability for articles has "subject-specific guidelines" that article content doesn't have, and that content is subject to only verifiability as well as passing WP:UNDUE. (Plz correct if wrong or missing something. Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Choosing ENGVAR[edit]

British or American Eng s/b chosen. I've changed to British, here's why ... Currently 7 "colour" and 4 "color" in the article; 2 "center" and 0 "centre". The article was started by User:Chuck Smith in April 2002 w/ 1 "color" and 1 "randomized". The first intro of British sp. came July 27, 2003 (1 "colour"). Based on this I'd choose American, but chess variants field is historically dominated by British: D. B. Pritchard, Thomas Rayner Dawson, V. R. Parton, BCPS, British Chess Variant Society (BCVS) Variant Chess (VC), so my choice was to honor that per MOS:ENGVAR. (It boils down to only converting 4 "color" to "colour"; 2 "center" to "centre"; 1 "randomized" to "randomised".) Correct me if wrong choice. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Template added Aug. 13, 2012. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Capturing Chess"[edit]

It seems that one variant, not uncommonly played at least among beginners and young people, is entirely missing, namely that one which could be called "Capturing Chess". In that variant, the goal is to capture all of the opponent's pieces, including the king, which has no special position in this respect. The player wins who has succeeded to do that. In that variant, the rules are the same as in ordinary chess, except in the following:

  • normal rules of "check" and "checkmate" do not apply. If the king is in "check" (i.e. it can be immediately captured), it is not mandatory to repel that threat immediately. To move one's king to a square where it can be immediately captured is a legal move (althoug it often is, but not necessary always, a bad move, just as it is with any other piece).
  • because of the deviation previously stated, a "stalemate" does not occur when all squares touching the one where one's king is are threatened. However, if one has losed all one's pieces except for one or more pawns, it may happen that one cannot move any of them because there is an opponent's piece just in front of every one of the remaining pawns (and none diagonnally so that the pawn could capture it). If that happens (but only in that case), then it is a "stalemate" and therefore a tie.
  • people playing that variant may disagree of whether the rocade is a legal move or not. Anyway, there hardly is a good reason to do such a move.

Does anyone know: does such a variant have any estabilished English name? If it has, it should unquestionably be mentioned and explained here. Or is it a too "trivial" variant even to be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FKLS (talkcontribs) 18:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Take-All: Origins unknown. The aim is to take all the opponent's men. The king has no royal powers and there is no castling. Because the game is rather slow and tends to be stereotyped, it is now usually played in combination with Progressive Chess. Progressive Take-All was invented by Giuseppe Dipilato (1979). (Pritchard EOCV (1994), p. 299)

Who's on first?[edit]

In "Play It On Trust", who moves first?

(humor credit: a poster on Flickr) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Six-player chess[edit]

The inventor is notable, but the game Six-player chess has no supporting WP:RS to show notability as a game in its own right. So your revert of my removal was inappropriate. Please do not add the game entry to the article again without RSs which support the game's notability as a game. (You have provided only RSs that the inventor or invention process is notable, not the game itself.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined (despite having originally added the game myself) to agree with IHTS; six-player chess currently isn't notable in its own right. Bhati's invention of the game has generated coverage that makes him notable, but it doesn't follow that the game is therefore also notable. When coverage of six-way chess exists independent of its inventor, then it should go on the list, although ideally an article on the game should be written first. At present, though, it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, and by extension, doesn't meet the list inclusion criteria. Yunshui  15:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

"Absorption Chess: a capturing piece gains the movement abilities of the piece it captures. Therefore if a rook captured a bishop, the rook would then be able to move like a queen as it can move like the rook and now the bishop. This rule does not apply to kings and pawns. "Absorption Chess II (or Seizer's Chess): similar to Absorption Chess. A capturing piece gains the movement of the piece captured. The rule does apply to kings and pawns."

I can't detect any differences between these two. I suspect that some relevant point got edited out. WHPratt (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There's at least one (implied) difference: in Seizer's (needs a source ref!), KxP results in the K gaining ability to capture e.p. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Did I miss that?? Sorry! WHPratt (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

chess variants dot org[edit]

The site is rife with home grown chess variants. I don't think that mention on it alone is enough to verify a particular set of variant rules or if they are merely ones someone made up one day. - jc37 04:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)