Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 05:05, 22 July 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chess Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inventor

Does anyone know who invented this game? It is implemented in ChessV, and I was hoping to give proper credit. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!

The inventor is unknown. Pritchard only mentions in Encylopedia of Chess Variants "Probably of Soviet Origin. ... Karpov is said to have been invincible at the game in his youth." Andreas Kaufmann 13:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic value

Re . If checkmate is also a win, it is a completely different game (different strategies & tactics) than if not. (What WP:RS says mate is a win? Lichess online rules!? And what is their programming staff's basis for that, do you suppose?) --IHTS (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Mate is a win because the normal rules of chess still apply (outside of the winning conditions). If a mate were just counted as a check, how would the game proceed without breaking a rule (primarily, that the king cannot move into check)? — Rhododendrites \\ 05:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Mate is a win because the normal rules of chess still apply." Where do you get that? (Nowhere. Your own head. That's WP:OR. As mentioned, the diff w/ that rule added changes the game's strategy & tactics in a big way.) Since you're inventing WP:OR logical arguments from yourself as a source ("If a mate were just counted as a check, how would the game proceed without breaking a rule?"), you can't do that, unless you want to fill the encyclopedia with what you think. The answer is obvious: The way to win is to check three times. Checkmate your opponent? That's not a win. Game over. Draw. (Or didn't/couldn't you think of that by yourself?) Stop wasting my time. --IHTS (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Both Lichess and Chess.com specifically state (and implement) that checkmate is a win, as well as . I see no reason why these sources should be discounted. Pritchard's text is consistent with these, as Pritchard generally omits the ways variants are similar to regular chess and discusses only the differences. I would strongly suspect Pritchard would cover how checkmate is dealt with if it were not as regular chess. --LukeSurl 08:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Give me a break. Those aren't WP:RSs. Your deciding what Pritchard "implies" throughout his encyclopedia, is total imagination on your part. His rules are genereally precise. You can't go around thinking what you want and putting text where it isn't stated, said, meant, implied, or suggested, then thinking its "encyclopedia-ready". Your "sources" are unaccountable, who wrote the chessandfun text, and based on what? You have no idea. --IHTS (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Your arguments are bull. (For example, Lichess and Chess.com implement w/ checkmate as a way to win. So what? Who decided that, their software people? Who? So what basis do you think that gives credence to the argument, to assert that here as fact? Who is their reseach body, what are their sources or justification? You have no idea.) --IHTS (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  "Pritchard generally omits the ways variants are similar to regular chess and discusses only the differences." No, you're wrong. (In many individual variant entries, he states "Other rules the same as orthochess" or simiilar. Why w/ he do that, repeatedly, if as you say, he "only discusses differences"? You don't know what you're talking about. --IHTS (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  "I would strongly suspect Pritchard would cover how checkmate is dealt with if it were not as regular chess." That's your WP:IDHT problem, thinking "this is what I think, because it makes sense to me", and not recognizing that as WP:OR. --IHTS (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have asked at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_sources_regarding_the_rules_of_a_chess_variant for additional input as to whether Lichess and Chess.com are reliable sources in this matter. For what it's worth, all games are inherently "made up", and considering these servers run thousands of three-check games, their implementation is at the very least a de facto variant (Lichess for instance has run over two million three-check games in it history). As stated above, I doubt its even a variant on what Pritchard was documenting. I can see no indication anywhere that Three-check is ever played without checkmate as a win, and, as User:Rhododendrites points out, this creates a need for an additional ruling that Pritchard doesn't document.

While we're here, your conduct here ("Stop wasting my time", "Give me a break", "Your arguments are bull") seems unnecessarily aggressive. --LukeSurl 09:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Quit destroying articles. --IHTS (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said at any time that "with checkmate as a win" isn't or can't be a variant of Three-Check Chess. (It can & probably should be in a new section titled "Variations".) But you guys don't get it: Three-Check Chess *has* a Soviet origin history, probably, per Pritchard, and therefore, that w/ be the game on which this article is based, not modern variations popular on servers. The alternative is to base the article entirely on popular server site rules, and take out any direct descriptors on "Soviet origin" and Pritchard references. Take your pick. --IHTS (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit, LukeSurl, threw away the Pritchard/Soviet/original Three-Check Chess rules, in favor of modern server variations of same, without explanation or justfication. (I added back the original RS-based stuff, and now Rhododendrites has been fighting me on the point. With what? WP:OR!) --IHTS (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have asked for a third (or fourth?)-opinion at reliable sources, and they agree that Lichess/Chess.com documentation are reliable sources for the rules of this game. I believe that Pritchard considered the standard checkmate rule to still be in effect (as for all other ortho-chess rules that are not explicitly stated), and The first player to deliver three checks wins is an additional win condition, not the only one. I realise we squarely differ on this, which is why I went through a dispute resolution process for additional input. --LukeSurl 10:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Your interpretation and projection of the "meaning" of what Pritchard doesn't say, is pure WP:OR. --IHTS (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• "They" believe??? (One person! One editor at that board, displaying bogus reasoning.) p.s. If I contact Anatoly Karpov, who played this game extensively sometime during its "probably Soviet orgin", w/ that convince you guys? Probably not!! You want your "server rules" and walk all over any scholastic presentation of the original game, which the server programmers did not know or research, implementing their own idea of the game, probably out of reasons of coding expediency, or their own OR what the rules "should" be, just like Rhododendrites has done here. --IHTS (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• One person at that board, displaying unqualified opinion, is not a consensus. You're a Misplaced Pages bully, LukeSurl! --IHTS (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Have your way! This article is about the server game rules, not the original rules. Good job destroying that! --IHTS (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep the Pritchard stuff out. You're misleading readers with it. Pritchard does not say checkmate is an optional way to win. You are implying he does, by including the rule, and saying Pritchard describes the game. You can't do that! Where's your source? The source can't be Pritchard, as he does not say that. You can't say "well he meant to say it, but didn't, because I think so". --IHTS (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying Pritchard catalogues three-check chess and mentions Karpov. Which is supported by the source. --LukeSurl 11:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise version? --LukeSurl 11:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your clarifying text looks acceptable to me. Have a nice weekend. --IHTS (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Except I rmv'd word "explicitly". (That word is WP:WEASEL, implying he meant it, but didn't explicitly say it. You can't justify that!) --IHTS (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec)Looks good to me. I think it reflects accurately what's in all the sources mentioned so far. Reyk _YO! 11:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Test your mettle

If you editors really had confidence in your assertions, instead of OR and bullying, and if you cared about encyclopedic value, then you'll agree with the following: If I can obtain a direct Email reply from Karpov, that he played w/o checkmate as optional way to win when he extensively played this game, w/ that convince you?? Yes or no. (Yes that the server rules aren't consistent w/ the original rules as described by Pritchard. Yes that the server rules are therefore a site-specific adaptation or variation of the game.) --IHTS (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

(And yeah, if Karpov says he played w/ the add'l rule back then, naturally I'll concede.) --IHTS (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Three-check chess is basically three strikes, you're out

Three-check chess basically takes the "three strikes, you're out" rule from baseball and applies it to chess; if you get checked three times, you automatically lose, checkmate or not. 71.168.230.90 (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Start-Class chess articles
• Low-importance chess articles
• Start-Class chess articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Chess articles