Talk:Courier chess

Article needs
I think the article needs some discussion of checkmate, stalemate, and draw (chess) to make it more complete. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Image
Diagram or picture required. SunCreator (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Courier Chess website contains a large image of the painting by Lucas van Leyden, and the Chess Variants website contains diagrams and a smaller image of the painting. I don't know how to lift them. J S Ayer (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like using the painting is possible. Found it in the German Wiki and importantly in wikicommons. SunCreator (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good! Thanks! J S Ayer (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Diagram template Template:Chess diagram 8x12
In the process of making a template to handle 8x12 board layout. Not sure how the additional pieces are to be created, but one thing at a time. SunCreator (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So next we require a Courier for d1 & i1, a Rath for e1 and a Schleich for h1. SunCreator (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Some other wikicommon images can be found here. SunCreator (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Symbols for chess pieces are supposed to be universal, and should thus be chosen to reflect the move of the piece, rather than its name (which would be different in every language). The current diagram violates this principle. It is the courier that should be shown as a bishop, because it moves as a bishop. The piece now shown as bishop is universally kown as the (shatranj) elephant ('alfil' in arabic), and should be shown as an elephant, although it allegedly was called 'bischof' in German. (Can this be confirmed from a reliable source? Jean-Louis Cazaux, who is generally very well informed, does not mention it on his website, but mentions 'schuetze' (= archer) instead as the original name, also used for the piece in shatranj and medieval chess.) The 'fool' symbol looks like it does not belong (too big compared to the other symbols). H.G.Muller (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Courier moves?
The article does not appear to describe the movement of the courier piece. How was it supposed to move and capture? Nutster (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The courier moves and captures as the bishop. Apparently the text isn't clear enough. J S Ayer (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated today. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction
In The rules section of the article, the queen is described as moving one square diagonally ("On the other central file, at g1 and g8, stands the queen, who has the move of the fers: one square diagonally"), however in the Modern Rules section, it is stated that the queen has powers equivalent to the queen in modern chess ("The king, queen, courier (remember, the German word for a chess bishop), knight, and rook have their modern powers"). Don't really know which is right but thought I'd point out the contradiction.--90.199.141.63 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a contradiction. They are two different rulesets: medieval rules, and modern rules. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't describing modern rules, it's describing how Courier chess rules relate to the modern rules. Otherwise "The king, queen, courier (remember, the German word for a chess bishop), knight, and rook have their modern powers" would be a redundant sentence, of course those pieces have their modern powers in the modern game. If you read the whole paragraph, it is basically a description of the similarities between Courier chess rules and modern rules, the statement that the Queen has her modern powers is one of the similarities noted.--90.199.141.31 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the "Modern rules" section seems clearly to be describing (acc. Pritchard's CECV) the updated rules for Courier proposed by Albers in 1821. (In that proposal, the piece to the right of White's king, which moved as a fers in the original rules, now moves like a modern queen. That is why the text in "Modern rules" section says that -- it is describing the new move of that piece, and the new move is the same as that of a modern queen.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No doubt the text in "Modern rules" section should clarify that these are Albers 1821 rules. (It doesn't look as though the text currently does so.) Because there have been other rulesets after Albers's that have presented updated rules as well (Courier-Spiel and Modern Courier Chess), acc. Pritchard. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ohh I see, now the whole section makes more sense. I mistook it for some sort of comparison between medieval Courier chess and modern chess.--90.199.141.31 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, and I'll be working on the "Modern rules" section to make clear it's Albers's 1821 proposed rules, and also that Alber's ruleset is not the only modernization attempt on the original rules. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added some text at least, probably sufficient to prevent confusion. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Courier chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901152414/http://www.schachmuseum-stroebeck.de/seiten/home-e.html to http://www.schachmuseum-stroebeck.de/seiten/home-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant?
I inserted three links to the town of Ströbeck, because they all bear on Courier Chess, and someone has marked them "irrelevant." What does anyone else think? J S Ayer (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They relate to Ströbeck rather than Courier Chess. The third one arguably does relate to chess but its of such a general touristy nature to be meaningless. There's also the consideration of overciting/overlinking an issue. There's absolutely no need to have three external links for the town. Sorry I cant support you but they aren't of much use to the article. There are far better sources around which haven't been used as cites within the article Jkmaskell (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the diagram wrong?
Is it intentional that white has an upside down bishop on the right where black has an elephant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.81.141 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Looks like a coding inconsistency at macro level for "e", also evinced here. --IHTS (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Caps
Either the article should be at "Courier Chess" or the article should read "Courier chess". Hyacinth (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)