Jump to content

Talk:List of chess variants/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Simpsons Chess

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Siamese Chess

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Which one? テマリヒューガ

Diagram Uniformity

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

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

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)
Name "Schizo-chess" does not show in 2007 CECV, but it does in 1994 ECV (p. 263) as synonym for "Mad Mate" (p. 181). Mad Mate is variation of Crazyhouse where captured pieces are reversed in color and dropped. (Some similarity to what is described above, but not with the spinning board and changing of sides.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Random Known-Opening Chess

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 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Makarenko chess

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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)
 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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

"Capturing Chess"

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Six-player chess

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 雲‍水 15:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy

"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)
Only knights and rooks should gain the ability to capture e.p. because those pieces do not normally capture diagonally like a pawn. Kings, queens, and bishops can already capture diagonally. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The diff was isolated to kings & pawns. And kings don't capture e.p. unless inheriting it. IHTS (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Since a king can normally move diagonally, it can also move diagonally to the empty square without capturing the pawn. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think we knew that. (The game is all about adding move capability - not subtracting it.) IHTS (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

chess variants dot org

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)

Some suggested criteria for what counts as a chess variant

From the comments here:

  1. Turn-based two-player game with complete information
  2. Played by moving pieces between discrete positions ('board squares')
  3. The players can move one piece per turn
  4. Pieces capture by replacement
  5. Many different piece types
  6. One piece type is 'royal', the loss of which ends the game
  7. One piece type is much more abundant than the others, quite weak, and moves irreversibly and can promote
  8. Pieces belong to a player

(The original 7 from H.G.Muller, with another by A. Black that he put on a par with these 7 later; though he adds "Violating one or more of these rules doesn't necessarilly immediately di[s]qualify a game for being a Chess variant. But if you violate a rule very badly (e.g. win by total extinction, in stead of check-mate, as in Suicide Chess), you'd better follow the others to the letter, or you are in trouble." (So that suicide chess is fine despite violating 6, and Kriegspiel is fine despite violating 1, and Progressive Chess is fine despite violating 3.)

  2. Bilateral symmetry and equality of material

An additional one from Parlett; his other four criteria are the same as Muller 2, 4, 5, and 6, though he does not allow for the possibility of multiple royal pieces. Chess960 usually violates the first point here, and odds games would violate the second.

  2. Game does not involve physical dexterity, drinking, etc, so it could be put into a computer; but no computer is required to play game in general
  3. Real time taken does not affect the rules of the game (except the tournament rules, which might give you time limits, and stuff like that)
  4. Board is finite and the geometry/topology of the board won't change during the game
  5. There is no decision other than the movement of the pieces
  6. You will normally have a choice of which piece to move and which way to move it (within the restrictions of the rules)
  7. Game has well-defined ending condition
  8. You win, or lose, or draw; it is not ambiguous and you do not win by a number of points which can vary [Betza PASGL violates this, but violating one is probably OK.]
  9. The different function of different pieces is mostly only their difference of movement

(More from an A. Black comment. I deleted two because they are really biased towards orthodox chess: the ability to use standard chess equipment, and pieces that move in the same way. 15 and 16 are pretty close, but the latter is more specific: I'd keep only 15, so that the ending condition, whatever it is, is well-defined.)

  2. All squares are essentially equal, there is no terrain to consider. [Obviously, except the edges. See 12. H.G.Muller's definition of this is "[E]very piece should have the same move steps from every square. But to account for board edges, you would have to allow some steps to be disqualified for falling off board."]
  3. A chess piece is either fully functional or captured, there is no such thing like 'damage' or 'health' with consequences to the piece (slower motion, need of repair, easier capturability). Of course, a bad position (e.g. pinned) does not count as damage. In FIDE chess the only (very mild) violation of the no damage rule is the loss of castling rights. [And also e.p. capturing rights. OTOH, I do not think this would disqualify "iron" pieces that cannot be captured at all, or "rusty iron" pieces that can only be captured by certain piece types, since these capturing rights do not change.]
  4. There is Zugzwang: players with legal moves are obliged to move even if every legal move leads to defeat. [Similar would be a rule that you cannot make a move that has no effect; in cylindrical chess, for example, Rh4-h4, going all the way around, would be illegal. This is mildly violated by chu shogi and tenjiku shogi, as well as the other mostly uninteresting historical large shogi variants.]

Another three from Jörg Knappen. Double sharp (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a worthy effort. I like the idea that you can abrogate one of these conditions, maybe two, slightly -- after all, it wouldn't be a 'variant' otherwise. However if you get crazy, it removes the game from consideration here. ('Chess boxing' is an example of something that violates your 'no physical dexterity' rule.') WHPratt (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, though they're not my rules: at most I just collected them from various comments on The Chess Variant Pages. If we were to be absolutely strict on them, even FIDE chess would be disqualified for violating 3 (castling) and 4 (en passant)! But nobody would do that. In fact, I think some violations (like castling and en passant violating 3 and 4, or xiangqi's castles and rivers violating 18 – though maybe these can be considered edges that only apply to some pieces) could be almost taken as grandfathered in because the games they appear in are so well-known. I'd say that whatever violations appear in xiangqi, shogi, or FIDE chess at the very least get a free pass.
I was by the way tempted to add a 21 "it does not matter how the winning condition was obtained", so that you could checkmate with any piece. Shogi of course violates this slightly (打ち歩詰め uchifuzume; pawns cannot be dropped to give immediate checkmate), as does shatar under the old rules (knights cannot give checkmate). But I decided to just leave it to the ones stated by somebody else, and discuss potential additions separately. Double sharp (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

CVP now has a page on this! Double sharp (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Upside-down chess

As I was copyediting the description of upside-down chess, I was confused when the notation I was typing out for a typical three move smother-mate didn't actually lead to mate with the starting position as given in the diagram -- a diagram similar to the one at the Chessvariants.com page. To make sure I wasn't hallucinating I logged into a couple chess servers to play the game, and indeed I am not.

Chessvariants.com looks to have it wrong. The first odd thing I notice is their chessboard has a black square in the lower-right. More importantly, the king and queen are reversed. The starting position for upside-down chess looks like a normal set-up, but like you're playing the opposite color. It's not the same as if the pieces started on the first rank and marched straight up to the 8th. In other words, it's not like white takes black's starting position, with a queen on a dark square -- the queen still goes on her color. My guess is the board was rotated 90 degrees to accommodate that switch (or the switch was because of a rotated board? I don't know). Nearly every game starts with Nf6/Nh6 followed by Ng4/Nf5 forcing moves to prevent the Ne3 smother mate. It might be that the source that page drew from was based on some niche over-the-board only sort of thing, but the page also points to MEWIS (the server formerly at that telnet address), and mentions "wild 5". On every chess server that has wild 5, including MEWIS, it's played as I'm describing it.

So I've gone ahead and changed it, and someone would be justified to revert because I'm not seeing a good source to offer as replacement (though it makes me question [again] the quality of chessvariants.com as a source). It is verifiable, though, via ICC or FICS. Meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My guess (to explain the CV.com diagram): imagine picking up a chessboard set up in the standard position, and flipping the board physically upside down horizontally (so square a8 becomes h8), where pieces would fall off due to gravity if not stuck to their squares. Then re-assigning sides (i.e. who sits where). IHTS (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Whoa. Maybe? For some reason this conjures an image of an early 90s computer animation demo... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Classification

Why is 'Endgame Chess' listed in the section of variants with unequal material? Both sides have King + 8 Pawns. I left it there, because I did not see where else to put it. I did usurp the diagram for it, however, for the benefit of 'Charge of the Light Brigade', which is an unequal-material variant. And I think it deserves to be mentioned because it is of fundamental importance for the understanding of the limitations of the concept of piece values. (As under optimal play this seems to be won for the Knights, despite them being superficially 6 Pawns behind.)H.G.Muller (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a section for symmetric variants with normal Chess pieces, but in different numbers.

I believe you've misinterpreted the subhead "Chess with different forces" to mean with unbalanced forces, when I think it has meant with different forces (armies) from the standard/orthochess setup. Likewise the description "[...] use different numbers of pieces for White and Black" means different numbers, from standard/orthochess. (So the class is inclusive of different but balanced.) IHTS (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you claiming that it is a coincidence that ALL OTHER variants mentioned in that section have different armies for black and white? While such variants are in fact extremely rare? H.G.Muller (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
H.G.Muller, why are you trying to pin me down/argue? I thought I helped by explaining how I believe that sec appears to have been defined & used. If you have a suggested org improvement idea, go ahead & say. But I didn't create that section, nor do I see it as deficient or undue. IHTS (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, nothing personal, but I just happen to think you are wrong. The section seems to be defined and used for variants where white does not have the same initial army as black, (but without fairy pieces), and Endgame Chess was somehow put in there by mistake. So my idea for improvement is to remove it from that section. There currently does not seem to be a section where it does fit, however. (Normal board, symmetric setup, normal pieces, but in abnormal quantities. There are more variants like that (e.g. 'wild castle' (wild 4?), where the King is placed randomly on the back rank, but all other squares there are occupied by an independently randomly chosen piece type, so that in theory you could have only Bishops. Or misc/shogi on FICS, which starts with two extra pieces on 2nd rank, and all Pawns on the 3rd.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.G.Muller (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I would say that yes, it is a coincidence that all of the other games in that section have unbalanced sets of pieces. The first section is for games that use a regular set (PPPPPPPPNNBBRRQK) on a regular (8x8) board, but begin the game with the pieces on nontraditional squares. The second section is for games that use something other than the standard set on a regular board. As it happens, most of those that we have here are unbalanced.
But there did/does seem to be room for improvement with the section organization. I took a stab at reworking some of it. Basically that meant simplifying, standardizing, and multiplying headings. It's a long list, so I think it can accommodate more subsections. The gist is that it's broken into orthodox rules and unorthodox rules. Each of those sections has subsections for standard and nonstandard boards as well as more specific subsections.
I think the non-two-player variants could be better worked in.
The historical/related games that aren't technically variants should probably be spun out...but how to frame that list? List of chess-related games seems pretty poor... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm finding the re-worked article organization (heads & subheads), confusing and difficult to digest. IHTS (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So, briefly, regarding the section headings which have not changed, it seems like "chess-derived games" shouldn't be necessary and that, as the subject is chess variants, I don't think it makes sense to include anything that isn't a chess-derived game. IHTS, I think you've read more of the literature on the subject than I have, though, so perhaps I'm wrong and "variant" can also be defined as ~"a game which bears some resemblance to chess".

But that can be a separate discussion. On the topic of the sections, and omitting those at the end that haven't changed, here is what the sections were:

Original headings
  • Chess-derived games
    • Chess with different starting positions
    • Chess with different forces
    • Chess with unusual rules
      • Multimove variants
      • Chess with incomplete information or elements of chance
    • Chess with different boards
      • Chess with different boards and unusual rules
    • Chess with unusual (fairy) pieces
      • Chess with empress and/or princess pieces
      • Chess hybrids
      • Chess with unusual (fairy) pieces and different boards

Here's what they are now:

Current headings
  • Chess-derived games
    • Orthodox chess rules
      • Orthodox rules on a standard 8x8 board
        • Different starting position
        • Different number of pieces
      • Orthodox rules on an unorthodox board
    • Unorthodox rules with traditional pieces
      • Unorthodox rules on a standard 8x8 board
        • Multimove variants
        • Incomplete information or elements of chance
      • Unorthodox rules on an unorthodox board
    • Unorthodox rules using nontraditional pieces
      • Nontraditional pieces on a standard 8x8 board
        • Fairy pieces
        • Empress and/or princess pieces
        • Other unorthodox pieces
      • Unorthodox pieces using unorthodox boards

The idea is that these games seem to vary according to (a) standard rules or not, (b) standard board or not, (c) standard pieces or not, (d) (if standard pieces) standard number/arrangement of pieces or not. It seems like it makes sense to organize according to those differences rather than use potentially unclear phrases like "different forces", "hybrids", and "unusual rules". It also seems sensible to remove the various instances of "chess"/"chess with", to instead focus on how they differ.

That said, I don't know that this way is the best way. It seems like an improvement to me, but others can disagree, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you started based on inadequate clarity of some of the existing terms ("different forces", "hybrids", "unusual rules", "chess"), but rather than changing or clarifying those, you re-org'd the presentation structure, at same time replacing all those terms. (So, two different things at same time. Which to discuss? It's confusing. [Also, the new terms introduce their own lack of clarity, e.g. "orthodox/unorthodox", "traditional/nontraditional", "standard/{non-standard}", and even "{same}/different" ... all essentially mean the same thing, Also, the heading "nontraditional pieces" is subdivided as "fairy", "empress and/or princess", and "other"; but *all* nontraditional pieces are fairy {so that's confusing since inherently inaccurate}. And "unorthodox rules using nontraditional pieces" can be confusing, since it implies "orthodox rules using fairy pieces" exists, which might be confusing.] There's some inconsistency too ["nontraditional pieces" are later referred to as "unorthodox pieces"]. The new structure is less reader "friendly/accessible" [e.g. there are two layers of structure added before getting to variants which differ only by the starting position].) It would be easier to compare the value of the organizational changes introduced if the new term use could be cleaned up. IHTS (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Fair.
The "orthodox" et al. terms: I tried to use terms already in use, but use them consistently (e.g. "orthodox" with regard to rules, "standard" with regard to the board, etc.). Ultimately, yes, they're interchangeable. I wanted to avoid repetition in the same line (e.g. X1 rules, X2 board, X3 pieces vs. X rules, X board, X pieces), but my reasons for picking the ones I did were admittedly aesthetic preference. Would you suggest using only one? If so, which?
The fairy: My mistake. I had thought fairy was the catch-all, indeed, but [mistakenly] saw fairy and empress/princess appearing on the same heading level (turns out they weren't). Fixed now. Just removed the fairy subsection and added the word to the parent, leaving empress/princess as a subsection.
If you want to take a whack at it and reverting would make things easier, go for it, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I tend to work w/ (evolve) what other editors put down, unless there's an obvious/clear-cut problem. I have a hard time finding a basis for entering this discussion, since I'm not sure what you found defective w/ the previous presentation structure, to overhaul it. (What problem was attempted to be solved?) Again, your impetus was with unclear terms, that could have been handled short of structural reorg. (Now we have, IMO, a presentation heavy on structure, so much so it overpowers/obscures the article content/readability/digestibility.) IHTS (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Blindfold chess (sans voir)

What about this form of chess? Is Blindfold chess considered part of standard chess, or should it be classified as "Incomplete information or elements of chance" chess variant and added to this respective section in the article? In my opinion - it should! Other similar variants on the same list are Kriegspiel and Dark chess for example. Another suggestion is to break this section in two, separating "Incomplete information" and "Elements of chance", since they are quite different, moreover the element of chance is a delicate question to chess players, since it contradicts with the very essence of standard chess competitions where chance has nothing to do! Apart from drawing lots for colour in Swiss system or starting number in Round-Robin system of tournaments, that is. ---Bobbylon (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

But you do have complete information in blindfold chess; the issue is whether you can remember all of it. It is not like Kriegspiel or dark chess when the information is actually denied you. Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
So, where should it be classified? ---Bobbylon (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't even think of blindfold chess as a variant. If I presented to you a game of Kriegspiel in algebraic notation, you would suspect it to be a variant because of all the moves that look stupid when you can see where the enemy pieces are. The strategy is different, with the information you theoretically could have. But if I present to you a game of blindfold chess, would you suspect it was blindfold? Even if I dropped my queen like Alekhine famously did because I forgot where some of the pieces were, is this not also possible with sight of the board? (Yes, it is!) To me, it's not so much a variant as a difference in the conditions of play. Double sharp (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I got what you mean the first time. So, should we consider Blindfold Chess not a Chess variant, but a "form" or "version" of Chess - like Chess Composition for example, Correspondence Chess, or different time control games, called "variations" (Classic, Rapid, Blitz, Bullet, Lightning, Armageddon)? Is it true for Centaur Chess as well? What about the opposite case - instead of aiding with a computer, introducing a Chess handicap (playing with less pieces than the opponent)? Would these be Chess variants or forms of Chess? Could we say that every single Chess variant in this article could have a Blindfold, Centaur, or handicap version? Could we extend this definition further, stating that changing the conditions of play (not the rules) does not create a new Chess variant, but rather a new form of Chess? ---Bobbylon (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. Double sharp (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Uniformity within the Article

To maintain consistency throughout the article I suggest:

1) Chess pieces are not proper nouns, so they are not capitalized.

Use rook, archbishop. Not Rook, Archbishop.

2) Don't add move notation to pieces (for uniformity across the article)

Use archbishop, lion. Not archbishop (BN), lion (KNAD).
(readers in general will probably not understand the funny notation anyway, and explaining it is not within the scope of the article).

3) Board sizes:

specify files x ranks as:
"Uses a 10×10 board". Not "Uses a ten-by-ten board."

4) Use "colour", Not "color"

(seems to be the norm for all chess-related articles)

I'll adhere to this when I start to do some cleanup. Please comment if other topics to maintain consistency across the article. Thanks,LithiumFlash (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC) (added item 4)LithiumFlash (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced variants

Before I set to work either trying to source or removing the variants on the list with no Wikipedia article and no citations at all, I want to ask if anyone who's done work to the page knows whether they're verifiable and/or knows what source they came from (but perhaps has not gotten around to adding it, or no longer has access to it, or somesuch)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't do an exhaustive search, but I noticed "Checkess" (under 1.3.1.2 "Other unorthodox pieces") has a description that makes no sense. It says "Standard chess but played with the standard rules of checkers instead..." There's no citations for it, and a google search brings up nothing. I'm wondering if it was added as little joke. I suggest we remove it. Let me know if any comments. Thanks, LithiumFlash (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I removed it. The complete description is below if anyone has justification for adding it back. If such a game ever existed it probably would not meet the criteria for what qualifies as a chess variant anyway. It had no references or citations.
"Checkess: Standard chess but played with the standard rules of checkers instead. Pawns being regular pieces and rooks being kings. It is set up like a checkers board instead of a chess board. It is played on a regular chessboard."LithiumFlash (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Move all articles on chess variants to a new chess variant wiki

There is too much "chessvariantcruft" on Wikipedia, and I don't think Wikibooks or Wikiversity allow this type of content. I think that:

  • All articles about chess-related games other than chess, shogi, xiangqi, and chaturanga
  • All articles about non-orthodox chess pieces
  • All lists related to fairy chess (this one and the list of fairy chess pieces)

should be moved to a separate "chess variant wiki", located on non-Wikimedia servers. I have set up a wiki reserved for this purpose. There are already many sites related to chess variants, including "The Chess Variant Pages" and the "Chess960 and Other Variants" subsection of the chess.com forum; the new wiki would be a logical combination of these concepts with the "wiki encyclopedia" concept, much as Wikipedia itself is a logical combination of the "online encyclopedia" concept with Cunningham's "WikiWiki" model. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 22:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree; surely some variants are notable, even if most are not. (Certainly Capablanca chess is notable, for example.) Fairy problems are popular and even appear in the FIDE Albums and hence I do not see why examples should not be given on Wikipedia. Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding chess variant notability

Watchers of this page may be interested in contributing to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess#Regarding the notability of chess variants. --LukeSurl t c 14:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Three-check

This edit by AMcDermot removed some text from the Three-check entry, on the justifiable reason that General format is that summaries do not include playing strategy. However, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-check chess closed as redirect, with the assumption that this list could adequately accommodate the useful information from that page. It seems there's a bit of a clash here, I'm not sure how to resolve. --LukeSurl t c 16:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. Justification for removing some text is also that generally the amount of detail alloted to each variant should be approximatelly equal. Other comments are welcome.AMcDermot (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice -- possible deletion of Flying Chess (and other variants)

The variant Flying Chess is being discussed for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying chess#Flying chess

and other variants: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Regarding the notability of chess variants

Please feel free to weigh in. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Castle Chess

Castle Chess is repeatedly added by StarCaptainDread without explaination. The only reference for this is a Facebook page. This is not a reliable source and, being self-published, does not demonstrate notability in the Wikipedia sense. Although the criteria for this list is lower than for individual articles, this list cannot be every variant ever written down, otherwise it would be impossibly large. --LukeSurl t c 09:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Castle Chess is a Chess variant published in 2019 by StarCaptainDread (Andrew Kuess) of Toronto, Canada. Castle Chess involves Castles, Siege Weaponry, and a variation of the original chess pieces including; Archers, Mages, Assassins, and a modified pawn piece now called a Warrior/Knight. The game currently has four different gameplay modes (Castle Vs Castle, Field Battle, Emperors Expansion, and The Kings Quests) which are played on 4 different boards; which are available in several variations of Castle Chess. Castle Chess: Advanced Game Tester Edition is a $10 Print and Play Edition that was released in January 2020. Retail Copies/Published versions; Castle Chess: Standard Edition, Castle Chess: The Emperors Expansion, Castle Chess: Online, and Castle Chess will be available throughout 2020 starting in March with Castle Chess: Standard Edition. "Castle Chess: Advanced Game Tester Edition" is available exclusively through Castle Chess's social media and website via donation. All other versions are being released through Thegamecrafter, and GooglePlay throughout 2020, until specified otherwise. Castle Chess: Advanced Game Tester Edition also acts as a contest entry to win the full game "Castle Chess: Emperors Expansion" which will be available by April, and as a Castle Chess Noble passport giving players the chance to win bonus prizes in future competitions not available to the general public. The Print+Play Edition is available for a $10 donation, but is limited to 2020 copies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.128.59 (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Castle Chess is repeatedly added by StarCaptainDread without explanation* that LukeSurl seems to think he has some sort of God given right to fix (which he does not, so fuck off kindly, thanks) - The Emperor of Castles. We are currently publishing on thegamecrafter, and have our own website, a kickstarter page about to launch for future versions, and we're running a contest to win a copy of Castle Chess on our social media. We are currently IN PUBLICATION. As such, it will continue to be re-added and you need to disengage with your actions, LukeSurl.

Indian chess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_chess . It seems a valid variant (even popular around India) that should be listed. --Pier4r (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Decimal chess" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Decimal chess and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 7#Decimal chess until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hand and Brain

Anybody feel like adding Hand and Brain to the multiplayer variants? It's currently in vogue at the super-GM level; Magnus Carlsen certainly plays a lot of it. The rough idea: each side has a team consisting of a "Brain" and a "Hand." On the move, the Brain names a piece; the Hand selects one of that type of piece and makes a legal move using it. I haven't edited Wikipedia in years, so I'd probably pick an inappropriate source and make a hash of it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EE54:8210:CD29:2F84:EF16:73CA (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Indiscriminate lists

I'd suggest the list of variants be made less indiscriminate, with either Wikipedia articles of their own (passing notability) or if even more are needed at least third-party citations. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the link to the encyclopedia of chess variants can handle the indiscriminate list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This would remove:
My first thought was to include variants that have sections in articles. That would keep Racing Kings, but lose Kamikaze chess.[1][2][3][4][5]
Also, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flying chess was "delete and redirect to List of chess variants". Clearly there are editors who think that some varients should not have articles but should be listed at list of chess variants.
On the other hand, we have to have some sort of standard, otherwise we have an indiscriminate list. And I have a real problem with including things that are mentioned only in one book that itself appears to be an indiscriminate list. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Racing kings is actively played on Chess.com, making it somewhat noteable... But I am not at all saying that being played on Chess.com should not be a threshold for inclusion of a variant. Elias (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Turnover Chess

I have my doubts about turnover chess. It sounds like an intriguing variant, but all its sources seem to go straight to the inventor. Is there an element of self-promotion here? Slimy asparagus (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I self-promoted it here. Btw it is a strong chess variant in many aspect of chess game. You should consider include this game on wikipedia. Lúcio José Patrocínio Filho (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion

I propose merging Duck Chess into List of chess variants. The short text at Duck Chess would benefit from the greater context at this article. Previous redirect was reverted by User:Jorsh Poeschy. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though this article is just a short stub for now, I think it would be helpful to keep Duck Chess as a separate article so that it can be expanded to include more detailed information in the future. Jorsh Poeschy (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There is nothing to merge, as it includes no sourced content at all. If some independent reliable sources (i.e. not from chess.com) are found, I could see a merge of a sentence or two. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree with Jorsh Poeschy unless they show some articles to demonstrate independent notability. Rhododendrites, my search couldn't find much to demonstrate independent notability, though there is a write-up here from a possibly reliable source with some editorial policies (1, 2). Unfortunately otherwise there are just very brief mentions in other articles, 1, 2, 3. Overall, IMO this likely fails WP:GNG and couldn't be significantly expanded to warrant a content split from List of chess variants, but with some reliable sources covering it I'm inclined to support a short merge at maximum a couple of sentences sourced reliably. VickKiang (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I support a limited merge as VickKiang said above. The sourcing on the Duck Chess article is non existent and WP:BEFORE doesn't come up with enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Beneduck Chess

For what reason was my edit removed ? JPT-SRC (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_chess_variants/Archive_4&oldid=1252834401"