Talk:Chinese checkers

Translation Inconsistencies
There are serious inconsistencies with the Chinese version of this page. For instance, the image on the Chinese page (and the version I play with my in-laws) shows the pieces are 5-deep (15 pieces per player), versus the images on the English page show the pieces are 4-deep (10 pieces per player). This also implies a maximum of 3 players for the version on the Chinese page (since the corners of the "home" areas overlap when 5-deep).
 * Addressed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Chinese translation indicates (assuming my reading is correct) that Stern-Halma moved from Germany to the US, whereas the English page says the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejtttje (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Stern-Halma
Probably Stern-Halma deserves an article on its own. Apparently, the Chinese version has developed into many variations in the rules. It would be nice to have the desciption of the game with its original rules.

What is the history of Stern-Halma? When did it spread to China? Wouldn't it be a little sensitive that a star of David is used in a German game? Is the game still played in Germany?
 * A star made out of two triangles is quite a simple geometrical form, not an exclusive invention of any people. Besides, if it was privative of the Jews, wouldn't it be a little sensitive to use it in anyplace where Jews have suffered persecution and prejudice (id est, Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, United States or Argentina)?--Erri4a 01:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Curiously German Wikipedia's article de:Halma is about SternHalma--Erri4a 01:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Halma and Checkers are not one and the same, so it was confusing to have Halma link to the checkers article, so I'm going to unwiki it for now. -- Alex Stevens

is there a mathematical analysis of this game? (i've never seen it)

also, does any one know any computer programs that plays it? i know one on the mac but it's badly written Xah P0lyglut 08:05, 2003 Nov 29 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know if there was an analysis as well. As a teen there was a play we worked out where if the oponent did not make a specific set of moves at the start, it became impossible for them to win. At least I'm fairly certain it was impossible, but I've never seen a proof of that.


 * games.yahoo.com let you play it with someone on the Internet. I believe it uses the boring one space at a time rule.  Kowloonese 23:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the computer on the 'free' site: www.thinks.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.97.199 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Capture
In the "fast-paced" version described at the end of the article, is it legal to capture your own pieces? --Juuitchan
 * I understand you don't have your own pieces. Colour is irrelevant. You just pick any piece, the one you think you're going to capture more with, go and capture all you can. Ain't it?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. exactly.  Kowloonese 22:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Clarified now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Two player game initial layout
"In a two player game, each player can play one, two or three sets of marbles. [...] If three sets are played, the pieces usually go to the opponent's corner." Now this can be done in two ways: Which layout is/are used?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * each player starts at the three adjacent triangles of one side of the star (aaabbb)
 * each player starts at three separated triangles, while the adjacent points are occupied by his opponent (ababab)


 * Good question. I always used aaabbb arrangement because of the sitting position so that all the pieces go across the table to the other side.  However, I don't see why the other variation can be played too.  The two players can always agree on one way or the other.  In fact, it can be a challenge to change the choice once in a while because playing strategies need to adjust according to the proximity of your own pieces.  Kowloonese 22:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I understand all possibilities are valid as long as participants agree, but we should state clear how people are actually playing. Now, another question. When playing   two players A and B with two colours each, leaving two star corners blank... how do they start?
 * blank A A blank B B (same players' sets together, separated from the adversary's)
 * blank A B blank A B (each of yor sets is between your opponent's and a blank triangle)

I'd like to know which variants choose other users. Besides, it also would be very helpful if any who understand Spanish and knows this game could review the Spanish version.--Erri4a 01:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turns for several colours
Besides, when a player uses two of three different sets... I understand the turns correspond to the set, not the player. For instance, if playa A uses reds and whites, and playa B uses greens and blues:
 * A moves reds,
 * B moves greens,
 * would A be allowed to move reds again or must he move whites first? --Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Another good question. I always played 1-2-3-1-2-3.  However, you can change the rule as long as both players agree.  Your alternative allows for a more flexible game, and it will accelerate the game because the best moves will be picked first regardless of which color.  Along the same thought, your suggestion can be modified further to let the player mix all his pieces.  i.e. instead of moving 3 sets of 10 pieces across, you can play a game of playing 30 pieces across. i.e. any of your own pieces can enter any of the three corners.  In this case, the players  pretend they are semi-color-blind.  The colors are divided into just "yours" and "mine".  Kowloonese 22:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hop across
Usually, in the fast paced version, a marble is allowed to enter into an empty corner in the middle of a series of hops, but must hop out again before the move is over. I understand there are two variants:
 * one in which players are not allowed to finish their turn leaving a marble in the extreme point of a star,
 * one in which anyone can finish their turn wherever.

Is this right?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We always played the no-stopping rule. Because the corners are often other players' destination, it is unfair to leave a piece in there to block their entry.  So the pieces are only allowed in your own starting, ending corner and the common playing field in the middle.  Transit into other corners are important to the game because it enables a lot of long distance catapulting which is the main factor that makes the fast paced version so much fun.  On the other hand, if both players agree, you can always change the rule.  However, the game may not be as fun.  Kowloonese 23:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Turtle players
which is the best way / rule variant to avoid turtling? (i.e. leaving one or more pieces on source triangle in order to deny opponent winning) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.96 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 5 April 2005‎


 * If a person keeps a piece inside their own territory from the beginning, then by the end no one will win. but to eliminate this from happening, as it would lead to no "winner," you can just change the winning conditions to be whoever has the most stones in the opposite corner, after a "draw" from turtling. 70.111.251.203 14:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or you could decalre that after everyone's first move the first player to fill their destination point with pieces [i]from any player[/i] is declared the winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.110.75 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 July 2007‎


 * I was just thinking about that myself. Why is there no mention in the article of this scenario?  In any case, we need to cover it properly – adding suggestions from random people of variations of the game that avoid this scenario won't do.  Besides, under the first suggestion, how would one decide when the game is drawn and it's time to count up?  The second suggestion would be a quite different game from CC.
 * I think what we need to do is look for published versions of the rules and computer implementations that add an extra rule to prevent turtling. One implementation that I've seen has an extra rule that is something like "If you can jump over an enemy piece so as to move a piece that is in your starting area away from your starting corner, you must."  The problem is that I forget the exact detail and where I found this implementation, but suspect it was Zillions of Games.  Anyway, anybody who has the knowledge/sources to help with this, please de-lurk and speak out! — Smjg (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer this "bumping" rule: "When moving a piece onto a location in one's destination area, opponents' pieces in the destination area may NOT be jumped, and they do not obstruct movement in any way. Each such opponent's piece is placed on the space just vacated by the moving piece." With this rule, an opponent's piece is moved at most 2 spaces, minimizing the consequences. It also eliminates ways of throwing the game with different corrective rules. One could use a similar rule for cases of multiple players walling off another player, but such a rule would significantly change the game. - 23:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Additions needed

 * 1) There needs to be a it about the game complexity,
 * 2) as well if the setup for 2 players can have the other stones in their corners while the players each only use one corner (opposite each other of course). This wouldn't allow the players to go into the corners that are not their own or their opponents.
 * 3) Also, there should be a tag/infobox for the wikibook on chinese checker strategy not a link.  70.111.251.203 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Name in Chinese not at the front
I took the attitude that this isn't really a Chinese game but an international game known in China. Putting the Chinese name for it at the front of the article suggests that the game originated in China, or is more a Chinese game than a Western one. If this rearrangement conveys the wrong sense, others may change it. Mark Foskey 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I read somewhere that the game is called "Chinese Checkers" in the US because US missionaries learned it in China from German missionaries and brought it back to the US assuming it was in fact a Chinese game. Can anybody prove or debunk this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.33.17 (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Figures
The figures are poor -- strictly, I believe only one figure demonstrates play. It does not seem to correspond to the text. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Five players?
The rule guides to two separate Chinese Checkers sets that I own, both allow for five players. I have also seen how-to videos on C.C. which allow five people to play it. Perhaps some discussion as to variation in this particular area of the rules is warranted. 97.82.251.9 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Problem is, 5 players is so weird it could be challenged whether it's WP:OR; we need a source that is WP:RS and WP:V. (A person can't "look up" the rule guides mentioned, to confirm. But the video could be sourcable if a published work. Can you identify it?  Can you access the content of the video too?)  Including variation for 5 in the article should be based on something.  But what do we have?  p.s. Am curious how to play a fair game with 5.  What do your rule guides say?  Thx. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Young children can play
The add supporting play by young children is from a reliable source. The context from the RS is consistent with the context in that part of the lead, i.e., why young children can play. There is no basis for calling the add "silly" except your own POV, and WP doesn't base content adds on editor POV. (You earlier added unsupported claim regarding "highly popular" among children. Did you have a source for that? There may be a source for it; we all "know" the game is popular with young children, but so far I haven't found a reference to support a claim regarding popularity.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've eliminated text re spelling, and counting. (But, your assertion that a mention of lack of requirement of counting is "silly" in the context of why young children can play, because some other children's games do not require counting, is a stretch. There are many games which do require counting. Saying "rules are simple" and "no counting is required" not only better explains why young children can play, but is supported by RS.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much you really know about this game, but the claim that counting is not part of it is incorrect. When a game is won, it is usual practice that the loser counts how many moves the game was won by.  Second, regardless of this "researcher's" claim, children of only 3 can quite easily be taught to count up to 10 at least [I teach mathematics] ... I'd like to see him teach a 3 yr-old how to play this game - with its hexagonal options ... little ones find it very difficult to jump directly over the marbles to the right space beyond!!
 * Popularity: Firstly, I did not originate the comment on popularity of the game among childrenLol! I did not introduce anything new in fact!! I simply rephrased what was originally put in previously, as it did not give viable credit to the need, like any other game, for strong strategy - that is, to play the game well.  (Personally, I have never lost to the computer ;) )
 * Just one other thought: the game IS highly popular among children ... or at least, it used to be - before the advent of electronic hand-held games!124.184.97.199 (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "the claim that counting is not part of it is incorrect. When a game is won, it is usual practice that the loser counts how many moves the game was won by." That might be the play practice where you are, but it isn't part of the play practice in general (if it were, then why is there no mention of it in the article?). (I don't know, nor could I, what the local rules are in your area, and without more explanation, I couldn't know the purpose of the practice of counting how many moves the game was won by. I'm curious though, what is the purpose? Perhaps it contributes to a total point tally, for purpose of redefining a winner according to high total points after a series of games? But I am only guessing.) Again, it appears to be your local practice, if the practice were more widespread, there would be RSs for it, and it would be represented in the article, which it isn't currently.
 * The author Mohr didn't make a claim that young children cannot be taught to count. The author's claim was that the absence of counting in the game, reduced the complexity (or challenge) for young people to play. (So a slight to the author by using quotes as you did - "researcher" - is unfair since it was really your misinterpretation.)
 * I do not understand your next point ... First you changed this text: "The game involves some strategy but is popular even among young children", to this text: "... the rules are simple enough to also make the game highly popular even among children", but now you seem to be saying that you believe a 3-yr. old will or does have difficulty playing the game. So I don't know what your point is. The RS author Mohr simply said that the reduced complexity of the game allows even young children to play, and she made no assertion about any specific age, she just wrote "young children". So again, you seem to be ascribing words and claims to her she never made, and then arguing against them. Which would be unfair again.
 * "I did not originate the comment on popularity of the game among children Lol! I did not introduce anything new in fact!!" Well, you did change text "young children" to just "children", which has slight but not insignificant difference in message given the context how the game can be played by the very young because of the reduced complexity. Also, you changed "popular" to "highly popular", and the meaning is slightly but not insignificantly different there as well. (In fact by adding "highly popular" I think it makes the assertion likely to be challenged, thus I asked you if you had an RS for it. In fact there is no RS given for the "popular" comment too, but that is not to say that I was comfotable with even that claim, which I wasn't, but it wasn't an issue with me because it didn't seem likely challengable, and we both know "popular" is probably true. But when you injected "highly", that changed things in my view.) So those are two changes you introduced. (And there was a third as well, which you might not have been aware: By saying the reduced complexity "makes" the game popular among children, it could be misconstrued that you have introduced causality, 'A' results in 'B'. There is no RS for that, and neither did author Mohr say it, nor do I think you meant to say that either, yet, the text you introduced could read that way. So that makes three changes introduced that you weren't apparently aware. [And if I want to get really picky, you added a fourth change too, by asserting that "most skill based games involve strategy". It's an assertion that I won't deny, and I don't think anyone would deny, but it is an assertion that at least 51 percent of skill-based games involve strategy - an assertion nevertheless, that wasn't in the article before your change. So that's four changes, the last two of which get no objection from me, but they are changes nevertheless. No biggie.])
 * "Just one other thought: the game IS highly popular among children". Oh, I agree! (Did you think I didn't? I'm not aware what I said to lead you to think I didn't.) In fact I also think the game is "highly popular". But, WP doesn't work that way, that we can put what we "know" in articles. (It's generally considered WP:OR and if challenged or likely to be challenged, needs an WP:RS. But as already mentioned, I thought "popular" was ok, but when you added "highly" then in my view that could make it challengable, thus I took off your "highly" word, and while at it, removed "popular" too, since I was frustrated I could not even find an RS for it! That doesn't mean I would object if someone added word "popular" back in.)
 * I think even with electronic games, Chinese Checkers will remain a time-everlasting popular game w/ children. (I don't know, but presume vendors have added it to their softwares marketed to the young.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You've made quite some 'to do' about very little here, I Hardly think so - don't you??!! Overall, my statement was, "I did not originate the comment on popularity of the game among children Lol! I did not introduce anything new in fact!!" True ... I did not originate the comment on popularity for children; someone, I'm not sure if yourself or who, had already referred to such with children ... the apparent inclusion of the word "highly" by myself wasn't a 'deliberate' change as such: it was merely how it came out in my experience when I re-wrote from my restructure of the thoughts that, basically, were already previously written ... I also agree with you that we should reinstate the word popular with respect to children. The change from "young children" WAS deliberate, as in my much experience with lovely young folks, little children / young children of 3, 4, or 5 find this game quite difficult to play - certainly harder than for them to count!! ... as You say, my 'changes' were "no biggie" ... and as I said, 'They were certainly nothing particularly new from the general ideas that were already in place - just a different emphasis in some aspects - not what I would call, "new" anyway. The only newer observation I made was the preamble to the point of the sentence about "strategy". Why are you picking at straws?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.97.199 (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Different Game, Similar Name
When I was in 1st grade, a game called "Chinese Marbles" was particularly popular. A rather ironic name, as C C Violette Elementary School in Garden Grove, California, had a fair amount of Vietnamese students (which is to be expected, owing to refugees from the Vietnam War; see Operation Frequent Wind).

As this game was played at school during recess, it was played outside thus: a small hole was dug into a patch of dry ground in an area free of vegetation (or a coin placed upon the carpet when indoors). Starting from an agreed distance from the hole, players would then take turns trying to get their marbles into the hole to win. The usual method of shooting a marble involved placing an index and ring finger on the ground, and launching the marble with the middle finger, not unlike a slingshot (holding the marble with the opposite hand, pulling back which builds tension in the middle finger, and then releasing to propel the marble forward). Shooting marbles by placing the index knuckle on the ground and curling the thumb behind it with the marble set in front of the thumb nail is also sometimes used, but more often at distances closer to the hole than when starting out.

Various rules were agreed upon and applied before the start of each game. Today (over 28 years later), I have little recollection of much of the game, but I recall something called "rainbows" in which the thumb is placed on the ground, and a bow shaped path is marked out by the fore fingers. The purpose of rainbows, could have been a way to eliminate other marbles, or getting closer to the hole (see golf term, Gimme). Other similar actions exist within the game with different effects, but this is the only one I can recall today.

This is the game we called Chinese Marbles. What I'd like to know is, does this version of marbles exist under a different name, why it was called Chinese Marbles, and how it fits into the main article of Chinese checkers (Chinese Marbles)? I would like to see someone with enough knowledge of the game I've described to create a new article, including the various terms/rules (in similar fashion to the Pinball page). I think the children of today would enjoy playing this game when they can be pulled away from the videogames, and thus would be highly worthwhile to share. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Diamond game variant?
The Diamond game 'variant' from S Korea and Japan is really just an alias for the standard hop-across game, isn't it? From its description, it seems to have exactly the same rules. Blubro (talk)

Maybe they call it "Diamond" because it's more descriptive, and they don't want to use the word "Chinese" because it's not really Chinese. Maybe that section should be renamed "Different Names" rather than "Versions" 60.242.231.163 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. After reading the description of Diamond Checkers, I came here to suggest that there was no difference -- or to ask what the difference was. This is two years after the above comment.Kdammers (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have a Japanese diamond game from the 80's that's the same as the 10 piece Chinese checkers sold in the US. Im not sure what the trademark status is in Japan because the trademark search website is currently down https://www.j-platpat.inpit.go.jp/ --Saledomo (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Naming: Chinese checkers vs. Sternhalma
I recognize that the term “Chinese checkers” is a common marketing name for Sternhalma. It’s known to many as this name. I think that’s important insofar as education and finding the page itself. That being said, The name Chinese checkers undeniably has racist origins and I believe in addition to the responsibility to provide accurate information, I think there’s an additional responsibility to discontinue the prominent use of such a name as it will undoubtedly hurt others. I don’t think there is anything real to lose by changing the page name to Sternhalma, as the page itself recognizes and addresses the name “Chinese checkers” making it easily findable with that term. Of course, the page “Chinese checkers” can still exist as a redirect, which would solve for people ending up there. While I presume there will be disagreement on the “popular” or “colloquial” name, and that should be considered when making this decision, I also think it should be considered if this name does harm, both to Chinese people who feel the name is racist and German people who invented the game. We owe it to the English-speaking global population to present the page with the real name of the game, not one that two men decided it should be marketed as. For reference, Othello is a brand name (of a seemingly inconsequential variant so it could be patented), but Reversi is the true name of the game. Both can be mentioned in the page, but Reversi is the title of its page. Louie Mantia (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally I think "diamond game" is a fine name because "stern" is German and "halma" is Ancient Greek while "diamond game" is already awesome.  There are some online discussion threads that suggest "diamond gsme" is not a registered trademark. I own a diamond game board from the 80's that have the same rule as sternhalma aka Chinese checkers, and it doesn't have King pieces. To suggest "diamond game" is always a different board game altogether is a stronger claim that requires citation IMHO. --Saledomo (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The game was introduced to Chinese-speaking regions mostly by the Japanese?
Though a source is given, it is a 560-page book and the page number or chapter title is not specified, so it's hard to verify whether the source supports the claim. I searched for "Chinese checkers", "Chinese chequers" and "Sternhalma" in this book with Google Books and could not find relevant results.

Since the game in Chinese-speaking regions is the same as that in English-speaking countries but differs from the Japanese version both in naming and rules, a more solid and concrete source is needed to claim that the Japanese introduced the game to the Chinese.

I will remove that sentence for now. If someone has a specified verifiable source, please add it back. Betty (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Stalemate
what happens if a player never gets a marble or 2 out of their starting area causing their opponent unable to get all marbles in? Is game over with no winner? 2601:601:9680:F850:599:320A:F117:E34 (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Aw, you're such a spoilsport. Seriously, since Chinese Checkers is an offshoot of Halma, they have the same winning objective and the same problem you've described. There is already a suggested fix at . Here's another:"As the rules of the two-player game stand, a player can keep a man in his yard indefinitely and so prevent its total occupation. An additional rule is suggested: when one player vacates his yard his opponent must vacate his own yard on successive plays, that is, the opponent cannot move a man that is outside his yard until the yard is empty."Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ESL Workshop
— Assignment last updated by 杰尼尼尼 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)