Talk:Minichess

Edits

I edited this article to remove slightly iffy moments in the text; does anyone object?~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing grammar! This are exactly types of mistakes, which Firefox spell checker is unable to catch... Andreas Kaufmann 21:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lawlz at above.

5x5 Chess References

I'm interested by the popularity that 5x5 chess had in Italy, and in particular the opening theory that developed. Does the author have a reference for the win/loss/draw statistics (it should have a reference to meet article standards), and where to follow up? I've searched the current pages AISE but have found nothing relevant (I don't speak or read Italian though), and figure the references will be to paper publications of the 70-80s. Johnmkominek 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information is taken from Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants (p. 196, Minichess (III)). There is no more information on openings or statistics there, Pritchard also doesn't provide exact sources for this information. There is however list of sources at the end of the book, which includes several A.I.S.E publications (in Italian). Probably one of them contains more information on Minichess. Andreas Kaufmann 14:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3x3?

There's no specification of what the piece selection and layout are for 3x3 chess. Please add if you know it.

There are none as there is no starting position. --Bobby D. DS. 04:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says:

However, it is a solved game.

If there is no starting position, what game, exactly, has been solved? —Dominus (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now: every possible 3×3 position has been analyzed. See [1].

There are 4x4??

Hey, is there any info about 4x4, 7x7???—Nicoguaro (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the only known variant on 4x4 board. There are a number of variants on 7x7 board, I will add them some time later. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information about 4x4 chess here: http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/4x4-chess/ - this includes strong solution for up to 9 pieces - perhaps this could be mentioned in the article. 333ES (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3x4

Apparently Kirill Kryukov solved 3x4 recently.[2] GregorB (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added this info now to the article. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other solved minichess games?

Have any of the other minichess games other than 3x3 and 3x4 been solved? -- The Anome (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I've just read [3] from above. The answer appears to be no. -- The Anome (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King.com "Chesster"

The gaming website www.king.com has a game called "chesster" that I like to play sometimes. Each player has 5 pawns, and one of each other piece (Queen, King, Bishop, Knight, and Rook), played on a 5x7 board. Many people from around the world are playing it and it is a legit chess variant. It's the only "minichess" variant many people in the world have ever played, including myself, since it's the only one I know of that you can play online. I don't know how much minichess is being played internationally but I see none anywhere I go in the u.s., so I might even venture to say chesster could be the most played minichess in the world right now? I think it's worth mentioning on the wiki; What does the world think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.116.220 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 'Chesster' is not provided at King.com anymore. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5x6

It is worth noting that none of the 5x6 games are covered (with the exception of the reference to Chess Attack, which article should probably be merged); see e.g. http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/minichessvariants.html or http://wiki.cs.pdx.edu/minichess/ . I would cover them myself, but I don't know how to generate the pretty boards from the article. --69.168.48.167 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a 5x6 diagram template and added a section on 5x6 variants now. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous patent

For a minichess patent with a ridiculous amount of invalidating obviousness and prior art, see http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5257787.html . Don't know what to do with this for the article.

Fortunately the game I designed, MinitChess, accidentally worked around this patent by changing the allowed moves of the bishop for other reasons. One of my former students had to withdraw his phone app that played an older version of MiniChess from the market after being threatened by the holder of this patent. --69.168.48.167 (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is inventing/proposing?

What did these inventors do to invent/propose these chess variants and make them worthy appearing on this article? 2A01:119F:2E9:2F00:B929:DF0A:DA7D:969A (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Shannon Number” for Gardner Chess (5X5)

What is “Shannon Number” for this minichess variation? And how many legal positions are there in this game? Somebody knows or can give an educated guess ? Ram Zaltsman (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MinitChess vs. Chess Attack

Can anyone figure out the difference between MinitChess and Chess Attack? The text says it is "Played on a Gardner board", but that's a 5x5 board, not a 5x6 board. And yet MinitChess is in the 5x6 section, and googling shows it is a 5x6 game. Djbclark (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be related to the "Ridiculous patent" talk comment. With no objections, I'll update the article based on my research and that item. Djbclark (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of empty boards by what appears to be a bot

A user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hi242234 was created apparently with the sole purpose of reverting edits I made to add blank boards to the article. It was also done in a bizarre way, not all at once but over numerous revisions. Given there was no talk here, nor reasons given in the edit log, all I can think is that there is some script kiddie who enjoys making bots in order to make Wikipedia an even harder place to contribute to than it already is. In any case, unless there are objections here, I plan on reverting the edits and reporting the user as a probable bot soon. Djbclark (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]