Talk:D-chess

I think this is a great variant! It has as much information or more listed than other articles about chess variants here at wikipedia. I have played this variant (d-chess) with some of the other members at my local chess club. Ig390 (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have played some games of d-chess too and think it will be the most successful variant very soon. It has gained popularity very fast. 68.104.94.234 (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that template as the rules said it was okay to do so, especially if I made some improvements. I cleaned up the page and added information about the rules. There is a Yahoo Group that discusses this chess variant and there is support for this type of chess variant. I too have noticed that other chess variants have their own articles and pages, even if they are not very popular (not saying that this one is not, but certainly there are many chess variants and not all are popular or even played much). This is a practical chess variant that is not being different for the sake of being different, but attempts to solve some of the many problems with chess as we know it. Theravada1 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I added some outside links so that it is not a single source anymore. Vibhajjavada (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I play D-Chess, and I added some extra outside references, including a book, Popular Chess Variants. Displacement chess is listed as the third most popular chess variant. I took off the onesource and self-published template, because I improved the article.Thegeorgebush (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * something is awry here. How can a 2003 book discuss a chess variant which was invented in 2008? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Displacement chess is discussed in Pritchard's book, not the (unimportant) sub variation D Chess. I don't see why this article can't be redirected there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting it there would mean there is no article to redirect. The "D" is for displacement, not anything revolutionary or controversial, so it is better to leave this article here. There are several chess variants listed on the variants page, most of which are far less popular and they have their own page/article. Vibhajjavada (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "notability" tag, I think that this has already been shown to be notable, certainly more notable than the dozens of other variants which are hardly played. See the external link. Not only is D-chess played and discussed there, but also in other chess forums, such as chess.com and others. Vibhajjavada (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a quick google books search and did not find any references to "D-chess" but I do find a few mentions for "displacement chess". I agree this article is not notable enough to stand on it's own, but could be merged into the displacement chess article as a subsection with a redirect there. just having a web site does not make a topic notable, see notability guidelines. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is NOT just a website that is making this notable. This variant is discussed at several other sites, mentioned in the article and on this talk page.  Why are you deliberately looking up my contributions and deleting them, attempting to delete them, or arguing against these contributions?  Is there a way to report abuse by one member purposely attacking another's contributions?  Vibhajjavada (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)  I just noticed on your user page that you have no expertise in chess, yet you felt the need to comment here.  Apparently some kind of vendetta against Vibhajjavada?  Vibhajjavada (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but I checked all your recent contributions since you seemed determined to promote the "who's who" in buddhism web site on the wikipedia. Please read the WP:EL guidelines for more information on why promotion is a problem. I weighed in here as well for the same reason, to check to see if this article was a form of promotion for a particular web site (ie. more spam). Would you like to discuss that? So my question then is, are these your web sites that you're promoting, are you mr. david snyder, and have you read the WP:COI guideline yet? Thanks - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * vipassanafoundation.com is the site that you were linking to on numerous articles recently, that site is registered according to whois to "david snyder" in las vegas, nevada
 * d-chess.com is also registered according to whois to "david snyder" in las vegas, nevada
 * the first member of the linked to d-chess yahoo group is also "david ... in las vegas, nevada", perhaps that's also you Mr. Snyder?
 * Have you read the COI guidelines? Here is a quote: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies."  The citations were to add encyclopedic value, which you have the opinion that they are not.  The organization, website you refer to is non-profit, 501(c)(3), you can look it up.  There is no profit or selling, it is a non-profit for Buddhism and includes encyclopedic information, like the Who's who.  There was no spam, when it adds encyclopedic content.  This is a talk page on d-chess.  What spam is there in d-chess?  The groups and chess clubs playing do not pay any money or fees for playing or discussing d-chess.Vibhajjavada (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that you're Mr. Snyder? I have read the COI guidelines. Vipassanafoundation.com does seem to promote your book, the first sentence is "'As seen on Amazon.com bestsellers list!" currently, for example. But I think it's fair to say that promotion is not just about for-profit enterprises, it's any form of pushing an agenda, generating popularity for one's personal cause or personal web sites, etc. It is relevant that you started this article with the first sentence beginning invented in 2008 by Dr. David Snyder; can you see why that might appear to be self promotion, even if you were not selling a book about chess? which buddhist list do you think self-promotion would fall under? I'm guessing it's one of the non-virtuous actions. but i'll concede that d-chess might be notable independent of your web site and your 25 member yahoo group, so i looked for book citations about it and elsewhere to see if it's talked about by other people than yourself. I'm completely fine if its notability is established by other means. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was a very selective quote and it's not fooling anyone I'm afraid. Along with Owlmonkey, I'd say it's a conflict of interest and I think you know it is too. However, ignoring that issue for now, I would see this variant as a fairly minor tweak of the more generic 'displacement chess' and would agree with those who think that the article (or a slimmed down, less promotional version) should be moved to a sub-variant section of that article. If it does indeed live up to its own hype and everyone ends up playing it, then a future restructuring is of course, not precluded. 82.39.117.137 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. How about merging it with Displacement chess and creating this article back again if there is enough interest in the future.  D. Snyder Theravada1 (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)