Talk:Four-player chess

Four rows eight cells

I remember an old four-player chess board our family had a long time ago, except that I'm pretty sure it had four rows of eight cells extending from each side instead of three rows. Can anyone else remember such a board, or do I remember it wrong? --QQQ (May 13, 2010) —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've seen boards like that. Do a Google on "Fouray"; I'm sure there are others. I also remember an early variation with just two extra rows (of eight squares) on each side: this meant that the rook's pawns were already attacking each other in the starting setup. There are no standard boards nor standard rules for four-way chess, (and I've yet to see a version that's really -- in my opinion -- playable). WHPratt (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was wrong: the Fouray board has three additional rows of eight squares on each side. But I'm sure that I have seen boards such as you described somewhere or other. WHPratt (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found it (or something like it) in my archive of old magazines: "QuadraChess," as advertised in Chess Life & Review for December 1978 (p. 658), by the California Game Company of San Jose. The (small) photo shows a standard 8x8 board with an additional 4x8 half-board attached to each side. Has notes of modest praise from Andy Soltis and Larry D. Evans, but looks as unplayable as any other chess-for-four! WHPratt (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rules section

Is a rules section a good idea, when the rules of four-handed chess vary so widely? If there is a most-used, standard set of rules then keep the section but otherwise it should be deleted, or at least changed drastically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbog (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, the article needs to be re-worked big-time. G. H. Verney's board & rules s/b front & central, then other variations keying off that. And the commercial lead image needs the boot. (Will be approaching same *eventually*, if no one else does ...) Good post! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge amount of material on the subject. I suggest for strategy, shogi and xiangqi variants not be considered "four-player chess" for purposes of this article, but (someday) have their own articles. The material left is still huge (including hexagonal variants, etc.). The current article has infant scope. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

add time estimate for a match

Please add statements about how much time matches generally take and how this compares to a regular chess match. I would suspect them to take four times longer, but due to different dynamics they could last longer. This information would also help give perspective on how different the game is from regular chess. -- Newagelink (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Play really ought to be slower, what with twice as many pieces and more than twice as many squares to worry about. Of course, the players can agree to time limits that would move the game at any desired pace ... but they'd need a specially designed chess clock with four movements in it! (Then again, if two teams were competing, an ordinary chess clock could be punched by both team members during a round of moves. E.g., white moves, punches left side of clock; yellow moves, punches right side of clock; black moves, punches left side; blue moves, punches right side. White/black share timing, as do yellow/blue. Reaching the buttons would be slightly complicated for some players) WHPratt (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name Moved

I moved the name of this article from Four-player chess to Four Player Chess. This changes the - and adds to capitals. In my research I found that there is no common name...4 player chess, four player chess, four-player chess, even four handed chess would all be fine decisions. I moved it because the current name is more likely to be searched. In addition, this feels better to me grammatically. Finally, it is more formal than 4 player chess. Bedfordres (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso Made last page move change Bedfordres (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content Changes

Article Exists. I have made a lot of changes to it in my sandbox, and I plan on adding those soon to this page. Anyone interested, I would ask if they look at my sandbox to see if they agree with the changes. Particulalry in relation to the content (too much?), sourceing is bad but is it good enough for addition. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedfordres (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

minor adjustments to the infobox. I plan to overhall the start section, add a definition section, overhall the history section, overhall the rules section, add a strategy section, and build upon the further reading/links section. For what I plan to add (mostly, not everything is different) to my sandbox, please see that. It should be noted that I'm concerned about: Too much information to impare clarity. Secondly, I don't think the sourcing is quite right, but I believe that it is up to wikipedia standards at least. anyways Bedfordres (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and added the aditions; comments concerns please talk to me Bedfordres (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say, thanks for what you've done for this page! It sparked my interest in 4 player chess history and now, a year later, I've given the history section of this page a large update. If anyone has an issue with the changes I've made, feel free to contact me Sabyrcus1 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for the kind words and I'm glad that you found my work positively impactful and inspiring. Obviously, thank you for greatly expanding the page; it looks like the history section of a game twice as large as 4pc ever was. Bedfordres (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]