Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess on the Dot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   redirect to Chess_variant. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Chess on the Dot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obviously a worthwhile enterprise creating (yet) another chess variant, but there is no indication of notability. It is listed on chess variant, but this could equally be an external link. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This appears to be a new name for spherical chess, which is known from fairy chess problems (Dickins's A Guide to Fairy Chess addresses it, and chessvariants.org dates its creation to 1965). I am not, however, convinced that it is notable under this name. If kept, I suggest a move to spherical chess and a rewrite to reflect the more general topic. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to work this stuff out, but I do not think it is the same as spherical chess, at least as listed at http://www.chessvariants.org/boardrules.dir/spherical.html Basically, there is no neat and obvious way to map a square grid into a sphere (unlike a torus or projective plane), and therefore there is more than one way to make moves go over the "poles". If I have understood the diagrams correctly, here is how a bishop moves:
 * a7 b8 g8 h7 (spherical chess)
 * a7 b8 f8 e7 (chess on the dot)
 * So this is different. The pieces emerge from the pole moving in orthogonal directions, so completely different. It seems to me that the author has not provided any compelling reason for his particular scheme being more natural than anyone else's, and therefore for Wikipedia there really needs to be some notability established. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I've worked it out. And the B's move is a handy way to distinguish between rulesets. Imaginatorium is correct, in the variant at Chessvariants.com the B changes square color and loops when crossing the pole, the Dot B doesn't change color and then goes in the opposite direction. (But that article seems to be a synthesis of Miller's 1965 version which Pritchard describes in both encyclopedias as the B looping w/o changing color as per Berloquin's rules, and Nadvorney's version [1975] where the B changes colors when it loops.) Based on the B move and/or other stuff, the Dot ruleset is not Grayber's version [1950s; Berloquin's rules], Miller's version, Yaspan's version [1970], Nadvorney's version, Nelson's version [1976], Carelman's version[1971], Boholy's version [1987], or Gramolt's version [1986]. But the B move [and possibly other piece moves too] may be the same as Klaus Schroer's version [game name Global Thinker, 1990, proprietary] -- it has the same B pattern as the Dot B, but I don't know if the polar circle is merely crossed or is a residable cell since don't have access to Schach Magazin 64 where is described further.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Totally irrelevant to the issue at hand but) I suspect it's quite easy - if you're not careful - to discover after you have made up the rules that a bishop threatens every square on the board, making it much more powerful than a rook. I also think it's unlikely you can make a version where a piece can be on a pole, because it would have to be able to move anywhere! Imaginatorium (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my expectation too (i.e. the poles are merely traversed in Klaus Schroer's version). (The text in both Pritchard encyclopedias isn't 100% explicit, so was just being careful.) In Nelson's version the pole is occupiable and each of Q, R, and B then control all board cells like you figured. Both Boholy's version and Gramolt's version have one of three optional rulesets where the poles are occupiable. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: We seem to have another issue here, of COI. The article claims that the game was designed by a Joshua Chao (as well as the physical model and the "digital implementation"); all of the graphics were uploaded by User:mrjoshuachao. Though, surprisingly, he only has one edit of the article itself, changing "transform" to "transmogrify". Looking closer at the article history, it appears to be a recreation of a deleted article (complete with COI and Unreferenced templates!). I checked in the deleted versions and the original was indeed posted and (other than the addition of the problem templates) solely edited by User:mrjoshuachao. It was speedied under WP:G7 after he blanked the page, so is not a WP:G4 candidate. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 04:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * delete I will defer to Imaginatorium above on whether or not this is the same as the old "spherical chess" variant. At any rate there are extremely few web hits on this, and they give this article a strong promotional color, to the point where I have to suspect that the point is to sell the specific object pictured in the article. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * comment As far as I can tell there are no RSs for this chess variant either in the article or on the web, that topic Dot as a game. It seems the German award it has won may be regarding its design as an object d'art, and that wouldn't qualify it wiki-wise for inclusion at article Chess variants where it has currently been included. I don't know about the retention of the subject article based on being object d'art if RSs toward that can be provided. And if kept on that basis, I don't see any problem including the inventor's ruleset (as already has been done) in it, but w/o an RS on the game (not the object) it seems to me it's disqualified from being included at Chess variant due to WP:MADEUP. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the (elegantly produced) physical set really should be deleted as "advertising" (or whatever); these rules, though, can surely be mentioned in the list of variants. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The standard at Chess variants is each variant listed is verifiable by an independent RS. (The only RS I'm aware for Dot is from the inventor himself, and he is not a noted variant inventor, so it's a self-reference not an independent source. So that means WP:MADEUPONEDAY. Plus there is the additional possibility that the Dot ruleset is identical to Klaus Schroer's Global Thinker.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggestion by User:Gwalla to create a Spherical chess generic article is excellent, on par w/ existing articles Hexagonal chess, Three-dimensional chess, Circular chess, Three-player chess, and Four-handed chess. (Although the latter needs much development and is really just a placeholder now. The others need some good development too. There could/should also be a Triangular chess as well.) But even if Spherical chess existed today, "Chess on the Dot" still has no RSs qualifying it for mention. There seem to be possible RS for physical implementation of spherical chess however, so I don't see any reason said photo can't be retained at Chess variants and I've already made provision there to do so (if the photo will be maintained on Commons). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – while this is a very cool concept, it does not appear to be notable (yet, anyway). Northern   Antarctica   ₵  02:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. My gestalt view of all the specialized, intelligent conversation above, is that actually it should be kept.  The topic is apparently elegant, attractive, challenging (more than i as a mere mortal can understand). -- do  ncr  am  02:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I agree with User:Gwalla above, that the article could be moved to Spherical chess and expanded to cover other variations. Chess variants article would be overwhelmed by the useful graphics showing how a bishop moves, etc., that are now in the article; it has minimal coverage of spherical chess in one dot point.  Moving to "Spherical chess" would allow anything too promotional to be edited down.  However, the current text seems pretty good, describing a logical, mathematical setting.  It would be more encyclopedic if alternatives were conveyed. -- do  ncr  am  20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * merge and redirect to an entry on Chess_variant. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Someone has been tidying up the wklinks, but the more I look at this article the more I think it should be deleted. There is a lot of special pleading (and private vocabulary such as "2DFARCSOD"); in fact this "sphere" is no more a sphere than any of the other spherical variants, because of the fundamental fact that there are only three possibilities for a clean "closed" chessboard, which are the torus, Klein bottle, and real projective plane. Any attempt at putting it on a sphere inevitably has "funny things" happening at the poles. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I revised my "Keep" vote above to clarify I now think the article should be moved and expanded (which I think is still a Keep vote) to the topic of Spherical chess. Wouldn't that work for you, Imaginatorium, to have a good discussion of the basics and the variations available for spherical chess?  It seems there is goodwill here among several commenters that could be applied to revising this article under the title "Spherical chess", rather than tossing it and its useful graphics and text so far developed.  I would just rather help Wikipedia grow, with some re-channeling, rather than discard a good addition. -- do  ncr  am  20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.