Talk:List of chess variants/Archive 2

Different way to play chess is not a "chess variant"
I removed the following from Chess variant because they are not chess variants, but simply different ways to play Chess. ...and what is situs? --Chuck Smith

''Variants by situs


 * Postal chess
 * Chess on the internet''


 * I'll put this back; if Chuck objects to the title because it has a word he doesn't understand, let him begin by suggesting an alternative title. Situs means place; it has meanings in law and medicine.  I simply adapted it to variants that depend on where the players are.  It also seems that the word variant needs explaining:  The listed items are variants because they are different ways to play chess.  Eclecticology


 * Seems like these are variations of method of play rather than rules of play. Perhaps blitz chess and other methods of time control (of which postal chess can be seen as an extreme form of time control, which allows for the remoteness of participants). --Jeff 17:30 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Playing chess on the Internet and playing postal chess are really NOT chess variants! If anything, they belong on the main chess article. They are simply different ways of playing chess. The game itself is not changed, so they don't belong here. Also, situs wasn't in my Franklin Electronic Dictionary, so this certainly shouldn't be the appropriate term... Alternate title: "Ways to play chess"  --Chuck Smith


 * I went to the online dictionary mentioned by Chuck. Franklin publishes the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the word "situs" is certainly there in the free collegiate edition.  My own reference was to The New Oxford Dictionary of English.  It is noteworthy to mention in passim that "siti" would not be a correct plural since the Latin root is a fourth declension noun.


 * Variant means, according to the Oxford, "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard". Since postal chess requires an alteration of the rules of chess (notably rules 1.1, 4.1 and 12.2) it is a variant. Eclecticology

are just different ways of playing FIDE/Western Chess. Samboy 22:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Postal chess, blitz chess, etc. are not Chess Variants in the commonly use of the term; they

First of all, I said Electronic Dictionary, not Online Dictionary. If a word isn't in there, it's not likely to be in common use (from what I can tell it's a specialized word for law and medicine).

Which ruleset are you talking about? I used to be a certified USCF tournament director and I pulled out my USCF Official Rules of Chess handbook, but those rules aren't laid out in that fashion. I also looked at FIDE's website, but cannot find the reference to correspondence chess that you mention. Also, it sounds like the "altered rules" are rules to tournament play, not changes to the basic game. Correspondence chess and playing on the Internet are different ways to play Chess, not different games. I hope someone else will get in this discussion, because between the two of us, we're not really getting anywhere...

--Chuck Smith

I'm with Chuck on both these points. All chess variants can be played postally or via the Internet or face-to-face (and even in other ways). These are different ways to play the variants - they are not themselves variants. --Zundark, Sunday, April 14, 2002

I tend to agree with Chuck as well. By the way, I added a reference to Rainbow chess, which I do not think qualifies as a "true" variant either. Luis Dantas 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rainbow chess is actually a kind of chess set, it should be probably mentioned in section "Chess sets" in Chess piece article. Andreas Kaufmann 19:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed link to Blindfold chess because of the same reason - it is just a different way to play chess and not a chess variant. Andreas Kaufmann 19:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Chess variants, which don't belong to Wikipedia
I (Camembert) have removed the following:


 * OliverYue Chess: Starting with an empty board, players alternate either with a move or a parachute drop of a piece on one's own half of the board. Pieces can cross this river (a4-5 to h4-5) only when one's own king is on the board. Pawns cannot parachute onto one's own first rank.  Each piece gets one parachute opportunity, when captured it is out of the game.  No castling or en passant, however all other rules re e.g. check apply as in normal chess.

I can't find any reference to this variant on the web or in the books I have, and I suspect it hasn't been recorded elsewhere. We can't really list any old variant that people happen to think up (in effect, it's a kind of original research, one of the things that Wikipedia is not). If anybody can provide a respectable source independent of the Wikipedia and of the inventor detailing this variant, then, of course, it'll be fine to go back in the article. (Incidentally, this does bear some resemblance to Unachess, detailed at on chessvariants.com) --Camembert

I removed the following on the same reason as Camembert (see above) - Wikipedia is not research (Andreas Kaufmann):


 * Geodesic Chess: Played on hex-based grids of various sizes in the shape of a sphere or icosahedron.
 * Super Knight: Starting position for white is the same as in chess. Black gets 8 pawns, his King, and a knight ...the SuperKnight. The SuperKnight checks like a regular knight, but it can move to ANY unoccupied square or capture any of the opponent's pieces. The game should be won by white every time but only if he keeps his pieces well defended.  The white rooks are not defendable so blacks first two moves are usually to capture white's rooks.

The following is removed, because it actually defines a family of chess variant, e.g. Marseliese Chess and not concrete chess variant. So, I think it is misplaced in the list of variants (Andreas Kaufmann):


 * Double and Triple Move Chess: each player moves twice or thrice per turn.

What is the policy for tolerating "dead-end" variants on the list of fantasy variants (i.e., listed variants without any articles at all)? Don't they just frustrate readers? --JudgeDredd

I think we don't have any policy here, the usual Wikipedia policies apply. We may still want to list chess variants without articles here, because short description is already enough to describe the game, e.g. as for "King's Corner Chess". Concerning "Extinction Chess", I think it deserves a special article, as the game is quite popular. There is no bad with making it "dead-link". The purpose of this is actually to animate somebody to create an article about it. Andreas Kaufmann

Bastardo?
Is "Bastardo" a notable variant? I've found a couple of internet links to it. If it is, could someone add the appropriate link to our disambig at Bastardo. Thanks. - John Fader

Does Martian Chess belong here?
Does Martian Chess really belong here? I don't think it's a chess variant. Of course "chess" is part of the name, but the pieces, board, and rules are all different so that I think it's just an unrelated strategy board game. Quale 07:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, "chess" in the name suggests that at least the game inventor considered it as a chess variant. But if you define chess variant as "a game derived from or related to chess", then it is certainly not a chess variant. Andreas Kaufmann 20:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I rarely disagree with Andreas Kaufmann since he is very knowledgeable in this area but I do in the case of Martian Chess (and Tafl) which includes pieces that move identically to queens.


 * The foundation of this disagreement (which I am already familiar with) seems to be semantic and word-definition related. Where do experts draw the lines between:


 * A. board games (in general) and chess variants
 * B. a broad, universal definition of chess variants and a restrictive, evidently-proper definition of chess variants


 * Since almost any board game can be implemented using the Zillions Of Games program, it is not a suitable acid test for a chess variant (even by a broad, universal definition). Generally, I prefer to use the broad, universal definition since not doing so leaves no term available to classify board games which are chess-like in at least one respect.  Of course, one can disagree that there is a need to classify most board games in the first place and criticize such attempts as reductionistic and inaccurate.  --BadSanta

Tafl: a Scandinavian chess variant
As XiangQi and Shogi were discussed and it was finally decided that they should be called "chess variants", I think that Tafl, which was a national game played by the Vikings, must also enter into the same category. Thus, I took the freedom to add it to the list. However, there is a possibility for a new debate concerning Tafl since the rules have been partly lost and it is not played anymore as a national game. --Philipum 07:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe Tafl is a kind of checkers variant, not a chess variant. On contrary, XiangQi, Shogi and chess have a lot in common and most likely share a common ancestor, probably Chaturanga. Andreas Kaufmann 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Unlike checkers, the Tafl game contains a King and there are the fundamental chess features of check and checkmate. --Philipum 07:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The only similarity Tafl has to checkers is that every piece is the same. In fact, every piece in checkers is of limited range (1 space diagonal forward) while every piece in Tafl is of unlimited range (orthogonal- ala a rook) as is common to many chess variants.


 * The inventor of the Symmetrical Chess Collection once told me that Tafl was an inspiration to him when he first realized it was indeed possible to invent stable yet fast-paced chess variants entirely without using limited-range buffer pieces. --BadSanta

ICC 'Wild 7'
This deceptively simple variant, with 3 pawns and a king for each side, has been played in ICC (http://www.chessclub.com/) by many players for many years. It is described in ICC by typing 'help wild7'. It has also been written up in several published endgame books. It is also supported by the freely available open-source chess engine 'Crafty' created by Dr. Robert Hyatt. I think it warrants a mention in the Chess Variant page, and it doesn't fall into the existing categories since it has normal chess rules but a reduced piece starting position.


 * It should not be included here because it is not a complete, non-trivial game. Instead, it is merely an exercise for becoming more resourceful at handling endgames in chess.  AceVentura


 * Have you ever played this variant? Having played it many times, I would beg to differ - it is complete (and much simpler to set up than regular chess), very challenging (for most people), enjoyable (for many), non-trivial (for most), and is rarely if ever played as an 'endgame exercise'. BTW it can become very complex in some cases where promotion is achieved by both sides. W7fan


 * Can the pawns promote to spare Kings when they make it to the 8th rank? If so, an initial setup with 3 pawns and a knight each (no King), ought to be equally playable.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.27 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC).


 * Wild7 is played just like regular chess (except the initial starting position which is a king and 3 pawns), therefore pawns cannot promote into kings. If the starting position included anything but the K and 3 P's then it wouldn't be W7. Crum375 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mutation and Dual Chess
There are two types not mentioned here that I have read about and personally played. Mutation chess is a normal game except that every time a piece is taken, the attacking piece gains it's 'power'. Eg: A Queen takes a Knight, and can thus move in L-shapes, as well as diagonally and orthogonally. This game requires a lot of concentration due to the number of 'mutations' that can take place.

The other type is Dual Chess, an interesting variant with complex rules. It is played with 4 people (2 teams of 2) and 2 chess boards. The players must sit:

Team 1: Black    White (board) (board) Team 2: White    Black

Each time a piece is taken, that piece is passed over to the next person. Eg: White player, Team 2, takes a black rook. He then gives it to his partner, who can place it on his board. Black 2 can also choose to keep the piece in front of him, to play at any time. Each time a piece is placed on the board, it uses up a turn, it must be placed on an empty square, and cannot be placed in a position causing the other player to be in check. Normally, a small group of pawns gathers in front of each player, while queens and rooks are generally played immediately. It is against the rules to wait for a piece to be passed to you and the game ends when both games are finished (if Black 1 and White 1 both checkmate their opponent, Team 1 wins. If Black 1 and Black 2 checkmate their opponent, it is a draw). If Black 1 checkmates White 2, but the other game has not been finished, the pieces from the first game do NOT get transferred over to the other game, both other players must do without. Aside from the passing of the pieces, the games are separate. Complex strategies are required, as placing a piece down enables a player to increase their chance of winning, however they loose a critical turn. Sacrificing is also difficult, as it enables the other player of the other team to gain a piece that may turn the tide in his game.

Should I add these in? As I said, I have played these with quite a few people, and I read about them on the Internet somewhere, so they are valid variants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelcontarNuva (talk • contribs) 27 June 2006


 * Mutation chess is a legitimate one that could certainly be added. Dual chess seems to be the same as bughouse chess (which is already in the article) except with some slightly different rules.  Personally, I don't think it is different enough to have its own entry. SubSeven 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)