This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ihardlythinkso (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 19 July 2018 (→Encyclopedic value). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:54, 19 July 2018 by Ihardlythinkso (talk | contribs) (→Encyclopedic value)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Chess Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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)