![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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!
Re [1]. 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." 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)
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)
Stop wasting my time", "
Give me a break", "
Your arguments are bull") seems unnecessarily aggressive. -- LukeSurl t c 09:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The first player to deliver three checks winsis 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 t c 10:26, 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)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2018. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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!
Re [1]. 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." 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)
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)
Stop wasting my time", "
Give me a break", "
Your arguments are bull") seems unnecessarily aggressive. -- LukeSurl t c 09:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The first player to deliver three checks winsis 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 t c 10:26, 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)
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)