Talk:Three-dimensional chess

Night Move

When you said that a night can move one cube rookwise then one bishoplike move it is possible for it to move through all 3 planes, ie, it moves one square forward, then one left, then one down. I sugest replacing that with it moves two cubes rookwise, then one cube rookwise in a perpendicular direction, thus meaning the entire move can take place on one plane, unless of course what can be interpreted from what is already written is true (moving through all 3 planes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J4ck 7he Ripp3r (talk • contribs) 07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the text "Rooks, bishops, and knights move as they do in Chess in any given plane" makes it clear that you can't do the knight move that would change three coordinates at once, but you're right that the rook-step plus bishop-step description is flawed (and in multiple ways). I've replaced that text by describing it as a (0,1,2) leap. I didn't try to explain that further; hopefully the context will make it clear to anybody familiar with standard chess. 76.202.61.191 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I explained it further, trying for greater clarity. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the Knight move is tricky to explain, especially for the layperson, but it should include more references to play/movement through cubes, and also the original/common description as an "L" type move. 02:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC), In hindsight, the leaper coordiate description is a little too technical for the layperson and I recommend removing it inf avor of the simple "L" made of cubes move description. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not change 3 coordinates at once? Ralph Betza originally proposed a (0,1,2)+(1,1,2) leaper for the knight when making his 3D chess. (It was too powerful, but its moving pattern was pretty and was helpful in checkmating.) He also noted that (1,2,2) would be strange and hard to visualise. Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

3D chess non-existent?

Did you mean non-existent? And if so, that's not really true... if people have made up the rules for it and built boards for it, it's real. -- Wapcaplet

But I mean, can we really play 3d chess now? Don't we need some kind of equipments that we don't have now? -- Taku 17:43 14 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it is actually possible to play star trek 3D chess! Look at the sites I've inserted on the wikipage of Three-dimensional chess: there are also instructions on how to build a chessboard! :-) Marco

Also, there is a very active 3D email chess club at Yahoogroups playing the Millennium 3D Chess* variant which uses three standard 8 by 8 chess boards. Go to http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Millennium_3D_Chess/ or visit the Millennium 3D Chess* home page at http://www.geocities.com/william_dagostino/ --Will 20 June 2006

ST vs Ginga Eiyu densetsu 3D chess

Takuya, are you sure that the 3d chess variant played in Ginga Eiyu densetsu is the same as the one played in Star Trek? -- Derek Ross 17:31 14 May 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure. I will clarify it in the article. -- Taku 17:43 14 May 2003 (UTC)

ST Tri-D Chess NOT 3D chess proper; definition of latter

I believe that Star Trek chess is NOT 3-d chess, rather, it is normal chess, on a normal board, with the only difference being that different parts of the board are at different elevations. Ive seen nothing on Star Trek to indicate that the rules are different, only the appearance of the board is different. Pizza Puzzle

This sounds to be about right. To dimensionalize the chess game you need to put ANOTHER board of the same size (8x8) over or under the original game itself. Also the original rules need to be kept in place. This is what has been done at rules for 2 or more boards. This gives those who think it is to difficult to play on a 3-D board a chance to try it out. It is also a stepping stone to more boards as the mind begins to analize more than one board.--Paul 20:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is how 3Dc(broken link) works. You have three 8x8 boards stacked vertically. The middle board plays like normal chess, but the upper and lower boards have additional pieces which can move between the boards. --Darac Marjal 21:29, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I guess the ST scriptwriters thought of Tri-D chess being three-dimensional by the feature of its three vertical boards (plus the extra 'attack boards'). If not, they certainly got away with it by calling the game Tri-Dimensional instead of three-dimensional, didn't they? :-) I'd say the Tri-D chess material is a relevant part of the article. One might make it more precise by mentioning the above. --Wernher 20:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Tri-D Chess isn't a three-dimensional chess unless a piece can move directly upwards and downwards in addition to all other movements. The Tri-D Chess in Star Trek has boards at different levels, but it does not qualify as a Three-dimensional chess. Should we remove it?

O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 22:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Tri-D chess is not pure 3-D chess - but neither is it pure 2-D chess. It's somewhere in the middle. The real question is whether or not Tri-D chess is worthy of a stand-alone article. If not, then I think it should stay here. Although not strictly 3-D in nature, it is more widely known as "3-D Chess" than "Tri-D Chess" so this is where people would expect to find it. --Macduff (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know where a copy of the 3Dc chess rules can be found? How about a set? User:Green Herring

Hello - you are thinking this out too much. The Original Series prop makers used existing plastic checkers or other similar board games and 3D chess sets on the market, with which to create the boards on the metal frame mount, and the pins that hold the attack boards. What you need to know is the rules as they exist today in general, are the black (top) board front two rows overlap the back two rows of the neutral (center) board, and the white (bottom) board backmost two rows overlap the front two rows of the neutral (center) board. When pieces on the board move, and where there is overlap, the pieces can also be moved to the upper or lower level square, from the square they land on during movement. Some similarities for the four (or sometimes more) attack boards. Additionally the upper, middle and lower boards are not normal chess boards, but are 4x4 squares each in dimension, with the smaller attack boards being 2x2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.38.206 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are several sets of rules written for the Star Trek game, @Green Herring, including a set approved by the author of the Star Trek Technical manual, although it is somewhat unbalanced and appears to be disapproved of by the 3D chess community.

The most popular set of rules seems to be the World Tri Dimensional Chess Federation, according to Board game geeks website. Deadbirdtoby (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks, that Star Trek Chess shall be removed from the Three-dimensional chess article should have a look at the history of this article. The article started in Oct 2002 with “Star Trek chess” only, which wasn’t called like that at that time. “Tri-Dimensional Chess” as name for all kind of Star Trek chesses appeared in this article for the first time in April 2004. And by the end of the same month “Star Trek Tri-Dimensional Chess” was mentioned for the first time. 93.134.143.161 (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Asimov story with 3D chess

The Asimov story with 3D chess was actually A Perfect Fit. Pebble In The Sky had a normal chess game - Asimov deliberately used a real game and gave all the moves in the story because he didn't like typical fictional descriptions of chess games. Ekaterin 12:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're correct that Asimov describes a normal chess game in Pebble in the Sky, but just before that, he describes chess variants that have been invented by the time the novel is set. One of these is a three-dimensional game. He doesn't give much information about how it was played, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouchy Chris (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Chess

I just wanted to point out that Dragon Chess should be mentioned as well. Actually when I read the article on Dragon Chess I came here to find out which was first, Star Trek Chess or Dragon Chess. The concept behind both is nearly identical, by the description of how it looks anyway.

Star Trek Tri-D Chess 1970s; Dragonchess 1985. The games are very different. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dragonchess is its own article & is mentioned under "See also". Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove Matrix chess from the artical

It doesn't seam to be noteworthy enough to have a whole section written about it, at the very least it should be split into a seperate artical. Its also written like an advertisement. Im going to remove it, if anyone objects feel free to tell me Googolplexed (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Terribly written...

The description of the unicorns is incomprehensible, and the layout of Asimov's hyperchess isn't much better (the typo that says "type 3 is like type 3" doesn't help). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.86.70 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree the Asimov versions are not well-defined - but I see the exact paragraphs on other sites. Problem is, to be very symmetrical, with a (lone)king in the center, the board needs to be 7x7 or 9x9, sometimes 11x11 to fit the pieces as described. I've put together an 8 level board using Stratos chess sets, am trying to figure out how to implement as near to these descriptions as possible. Maybe the book (I have on order) will have a more accurate description; it sounds like the Roseate formation is maybe the only one given by Asimov - apparently he made a simple math mistake! (can't fit 9 rows of pieces on an 8x8 board!!) Chesshacker (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The bit about "roseate" and "cruciate" formations is just bunk. No such description appears in either the novel or the short story. I have edited that out.Grouchy Chris (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the unicorn move description is improved now. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Star trek chessboard

I drew ST Chessboard with google SketchUp. If someone want to improve actual design please contact me I'll send by mail actual skp file. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

reality check

To date, this article has been heavily loaded with irrelevant material by Star Trek and science fiction novel fans/fanatics about imaginary, non-existant, unplayable, incomplete and/or undeveloped 3-D games. This article must only be devoted to describing real, playable 3-D games that also meet the notability standards of Wikipedia. -DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC).

Hi David, does that preclude mention in a section like "In literature" or "In popular culture", etc., that I have seen in other WP articles? (In other words, would such section in the current article be bad idea?) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For-purchase rules a COI, or not?

Tri-Dimensional Chess Rules – Standard Rules by Andrew BartmessTri-Dimensional Chess Rules – Standard Rules by Andrew Bartmess The link goes to a site containing "BUY RULES" link which goes to another site where Bartmess Standard Rules are available only via purchase. Is this COI? Or COI exception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihardlythinkso (talk • contribs) 00:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, a COI is typically not provable or knowable unless the editor who included this commercial link openly admits to being Bartmess or a business associate. Unfortunately, I do not see another, non-commercial link to a rulebook anywhere within the article. -DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

I don't understand ... If there *were* a non-commercial link to set of rules in the article, then what? (Also, don't such links belong in EL section?) Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Then ... it wouldn't cost people money just for the rules. That's all I meant. -DavidWatersHC

Why wouldn't this apply? WP:EL "Links normally to be avoided": Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services ... ? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There *is* a relatively new site which is non-commercial & describes the most recent published Bartmess rules, plus is efforting to resolve ambiguities inherent in those rules. Will that be of any help? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice research! In my opinion, that would be a better reference for the article. Act as you see fit. -DavidWatersHC

Done. (A step at least, with the Charles Roth link. I'm still wondering if a link to the Bartmess site offering Standard Rules for-purchase-only at $8.95 a pop U.S./$10.95 int'l, is consistent w/ Wikipedia policy!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. (Step 2.) No link to site soliciting commercial sales ("BUY!"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Added The Standard Rules as a Note to article body. Don't see how it could possibly qualify for Reference section, lacking both ISBN and publisher id. (Appears to be self-published pages connected via staples.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The commercial site of orig author contains some nice history, so I restored the WP:EL. (I think as long as it is identified as "commercial site" it is perhaps okay.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

other variants

Most of the section "other variants" is dedicated to describing, in lengthy detail, a "variant of 3D chess simulated by the 3dchess program for GNU/Linux". Nowhere in the article is the name of this commercially-manufactured game given. This current state of affairs is pointless. If someone cares about this game, then its name needs to be put into this article soon. Otherwise, its orphaned description should be deleted. -DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC).

We should remove any specific chess variant that lacks reliable sources, including external links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You completely missed my meaning. I just deleted the useless section of orphaned gibberish I was referring to.

Anyway ...

As far as external links go, it is preferable but NOT mandatory for games that merit external links to be noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the body of the article. Therefore, you are taking an extreme, destructive position not stated or supported anywhere within WP:EL.

The nature of this article is more artistic than scientific. Skilled people just arbitrarily create 3-D chess variants. "Reliable sources" from academic journals to prove they exist are, in fact, ridiculously rare as well as unreasonable and unrealistic to demand or expect. If a 3-D game is fully defined and playable, then it exists. This state of affairs is too simple to be confusing. Notwithstanding, I have only found three 3-D games with dedicated web sites that merit having their external links restored.

If you undertake a radical program to remove ALL chess variants (2-D & 3-D) that "lack reliable sources", there will only be a few-several left out of appr. 75 games currently. I will not stand idly by and allow you to destroy years of quality, constructive work by hundreds of editors. I remind you that the category of chess variants at Wikipedia exists with the approval of top editors more powerful than you. It is not your place to, in effect, unilaterally destroy it via your stated excuse. -DavidWatersHC

If a variant needs a reference, let me know (on my talk page) and I will see if it is in Pritchard's Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. If it is there, it has a good source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure these unnamed 'top editors' do not mean to suggest that basic policies such as WP:V should be ignored. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who ultimately runs Wikipedia, who has power over "admins" such as yourself.

Verifiability is a sound basic policy but going to the fanatical extreme to close your eyes to hard evidence (other than academic citations) of what obviously, undeniably exists is NOT intelligent behavior.

For example ...

If you can download a program (often Zillions or Axiom) that rationally plays a two-player chess variant (typically, computer vs. human) on an IBM-compatible computer running a modern version of Microsoft Windows, how can you possibly persist in denying that a playable game exists ... after you have repeatedly played it? To be sure, this is the case with one of the three external links I am attempting to include. Are you willing to fairly investigate my claim and when it proves true, allow this ONE select item to be added?

Verifiability concentrates on claims. The only claim a game makes is that it exists. -DavidWatersHC

Just because something exists doesn't mean that it is notable enough for inclusion. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." -the Wikipedia guideline on notability

The context of my remarks concerns only whether or not a game merits an external link, not its own article.

-DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

If that is so, I am confused by your mention of 75+ variants and categories, since this article has only a handful of external links. In any case, I will remind you that WP:ELNO tells us that links should not be used to promote sites (point 4), that we should not link to people's personal sites (point 11), and that we should not link to sites about a specific subject (one variant) on an article about a general subject (point 13). You should probably read over Wikipedia:Civility as well. Thanks. -MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MrOllie on this. Some particular games and games sites are notable. None of particular ones mentioned in the article are. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie- You always agree with MrOllie yet never have anything of substance to say, either about the subject matter of chess variants or Wikipedia policy. -DavidWatersHC

Thanks for your feedback. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie- I have noticed too that you seem to play a supportive role in conjunction w/ MrOllie, following him in cleanup operations as though working as pair or team. (For example in this article you reverted edits previously reverted by MrOllie and subsequently undone by article editors.) Is the apparent teamwork a planned or prescribed thing within Wikipedia? (For example is there 3RR rule circumvention or other advantage gained when teaming w/ another Editor which facilitates your specialized cleanup operations?) I'm just asking not accusing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

David said "The context of my remarks concerns only whether or not a game merits an external link, not its own article." Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bubba73- No argument from me. That policy means essentially that the number of external links should not be excessive and those chosen should be relevant and high-quality. Recall that I think only 1-3 need to be added. -DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

David - Why wouldn't "Millennium 3D Chess" be notable and merit its own article, if "Dragonchess" is and does? (In that case the Millennium EL could be a reference in it's own article - what is wrong with that plan?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Bubba73-

If it means enough to you to create and write an article for that game, please do so. Just stay mindful that there is always a looming possibility it will be deleted by other editors unless you can establish that it is notable.

I moved Millennium 3D Chess to its own article as of today. Okay, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

-DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 03:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC).

MrOllie-

When I mentioned 75+ chess variants, I meant 2-D games as well as 3-D games with Wikipedia pages.

If you sincerely care about applying Wikipedia policy correctly (instead of corruptly), please redirect your attention to WP:ELMAYBE, the section "links to be considered". Point 4 states, "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.".

Did you really take the time to examine in detail and fairly CONSIDER all of the several external links you deleted?

Do you expect me to believe it is merely an unfortunate (to me) happenstance that you decided to delete every damned one of them that you allegedly fairly considered?

-DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

I didn't delete any external links. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bubba73-

I realize that. I sent two messages in a series. My first message was directed at you. My second message was directed at MrOllie. Sorry for causing confusion.

-DavidWatersHC

MrOllie-

From WP:ELNO, the section "links normally to be avoided"

4. "Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions."

You summarized this as "links should not be used to promote sites".

Do you see any online petitions, promotions or advertisements on any of the three external links I recommend? Of course not.

None of these web sites are promoting themselves in any way. Their common, sole purpose is to clearly present a free 3-D game for anyone to play.

11. "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority."

You summarized this as "that we should not link to people's personal sites".

Do you see any blogs about personal lives, Facebook vanity pages or Star Trek fan pages? Of course not.

13. "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked."

You excerpted its most relevant part as "that we should not link to sites about a specific subject (one variant) on an article about a general subject".

Yes, this article is about the general subject of 3-D chess variants. Although a definition of 3-D chess variants or explanation of what all of them share in common is given within this article, most of its text is devoted to describing two specific 3-D chess variants that are notable. The three 3-D games for which I seek external links are of comparable quality, just not notable.

In summary, none of the points you are attempting to use are applicable at all to justify NOT included the desired external links.

-DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

I disagree on all counts. Links to promote a website refers to exactly that. For example, someone linking their own website (which has happened on this page). Not to links to advertisements. 'Personal web pages' refers to single owner, self published sites, not to sites with personal information on them. You don't seem to actually refute point 13, since 'quality' has nothing to do with that criterion. I will say that inclusion as an external link is not a judgement on the quality of any given chess variant. Wikipedia is simply not in the business of being a directory of links. If you want to build a directory of links, you should submit them to a project such as dmoz.org. - MrOllie (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie-

If you sincerely care about applying Wikipedia policy correctly (instead of corruptly), please redirect your attention to WP:ELYES, the section "what should be linked". Point 3 states, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... (a variety of reasons).". I took the liberty to fairly summarize the end.

In this case, any honest and intelligent editor can see the obvious- that all of the three desired external links are as perfect of a fit to this criteria as anything gets in the real world.

YES!

So ... Would you like to restore these external links (that you never should have been removed in the first place) or would you prefer me to?

-DavidWatersHC

Per WP:ELBURDEN, you should not restore these links without a demonstrated consensus here on the talk page. As to your point, the important bit is 'relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject', the exact rules of any specific variant are not really relevant to an encyclopedic understanding. - MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

MrOllie-

There are only two editors, you & Ohnoitsjamie, provably against restoring these external links. You two have reverted the work of more editors than that (est. several) who originally placed these external links and/or tried to restore them. A 100% consensus for an edit is not needed and rarely exists anyway.

Please refer to WP:CONS:

What consensus is

Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus aligned with Wikipedia's principles.

Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes.

Note: External links are a minor change to an article.

It is important and relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject of 3-D chess variants to realize there that more than 4 games exist and moreover, to have a direct, convenient means of navigating to other games (i.e., external links).

Well, the exact rules of specific 3-D chess variants are usually included wherever you find them. Otherwise, people can't figure-out how to play the games. So ... What is your point, anyway?

I recently realized that you & Ohnoitsjamie think you have legitimate reasons, compliant with Wikipedia policy, for deleting all of the external links in a sub-section. Accordingly, I am compelled to apologize for misinterpretting your actions and calling them "vandalism".

-DavidWatersHC

You know, you're right, we could use some additional eyes on this. I have posted on the external links noticeboard so the issue can get some more attention. - MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm responding to the (nicely neutral) notice at WP:ELN. My initial reaction is to wonder whether there's a page that contains a good list. Have you looked for a DMOZ category, for example? I personally prefer a well-maintained list on someone's website, but surely someone has a decent list or directory.
  Additionally, Yahoo! Groups links are always an ELNO problem (#10), and the use of level 3 section headings is discouraged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this discussion ... If you take a look at article Chess variant, you will find many non-notable variants presented in the article, and most of the article Notes consist of nothing more than links to their respective game sources, some of which are very weak compared to the current article here. (For example, 'Evil Queen' variant has no presence anywhere I can find online or anywhere else; 'Jedi Knight chess' links to a personal space on a website; 'Doublewide chess' simply links to its entry at chessvariants.com; 'Dunsany's chess' has an article of its own and the sole basis for it is an entry in Pritchard's book; 'ChessHeads' requires a proprietary playing card deck and links to its entry at Boardgamegeek.com as well as linking to a commercial website selling the deck and other products; and another entry linked only to a personal blogspace. Etc.)

So my point is, why are we discussing the external link and related issue(s) *here*, when it seems the same issues exist to greater degree and in manifold ways already at the Chess variant article, making that article a better candidate or opportunity for the same discussion? (I.e. if policy issues exist here, then that article would certainly seem a more optimum & appropriate centerpiece or poster child for settling matters or clarifying what is or isn't consistent with WP, since the same issues seem much more severe/extreme *there*. [And any result/rectification there could of course serve easily then as model/precedent here for correction/consistency/uniformity, etc.])

It's also been suggested to stay away from level 3 sections, and also to perhaps use an EL to a site where article entries are listed & maintained, as alternative to individual specification in the Wikipedia article itself (if I understand correctly). Okay, again, the Chess variant article seems to be loaded up with level 3 sections already, and, is it also proposed to remove all those entries and replace them w/ a link to websites like Chessvariants.com, Boardgamegeek.com, etc.?

(If I'm not understanding something, please explain, thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

BBT Appearance

Should we mention the appearance of the Star Trek Tri-D Chess Set on The Big Bang Theory? 173.171.48.130 (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a "Popular culture" section in the article, which included Big Bang Theory, as late as end of 2009 (see here). But User:Narsil got rid of it Jan. 4, 2010 (here). This was the edit summary:

Removing section--the "Star Trek" game is covered elsewhere in this article, other items are not sufficiently notable.

(Narsil's total edit count for the article = 2; his other edit was a sentence making reference to Nancy Pelosi, which was subsequently reverted.)

Wikipedia states "notability" is a requirement for a subject to have its own article, but goes on to say article content is governed differently. So I'm not sure of the veracity of Narsil's justification for delete; my guess is he was wrong. Of course there are lotsa WP articles with "Popular culture" (or "In popular culture") sections.

Do we bring the section back? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

3D Chess Board not straight stacking of 2D Boards (& other clarifying)

Someone deleted from the article the the mistake that many people make with 3D Chess,
they stack several Chess boards and think that works out fine.
It isn't that simple and diagrams don't highlight the point as thought you could make an article with just diagrams.
You have to state it in the article in writing that the cubes alternate color in all directions.
If you stack the boards wrong some of the piece move completely differently. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already contains this text: "The cubes (usually represented by squares) alternate in color in all three dimensions." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I know - I couldn't say I found it or continue fixing the paragraphs due to some browser malfuntion/interference.24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to close the window after each edit, and I can't use preview, if I do that I can edit normally. By the way my "Anon" IP say more about me than your UserID. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I disabled a taskbar addon and that solved the problem. Make sure you understand that I can play chess and 3D chess and though I have not made as many edits to this article as you have I have made many improvements (eg. the intro sentence, the visualization of pieces moving from 26 directions out of a cube.) that have lasted. I am not here to vandalize as your reversion note insinuates. It was a browser malfuntion (if it wasn't there before me,) and I was trying to fix it, before I went out for dinner. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ As far as I can see there are three sections to this article, the intro which talks about generic 3D chess and states only that there are variations, the section on 5x5x5 Chess, and the section on Star Trek Chess.
I consider the first section to be deficient and the highlighting of the later two to be warranted, but not above the development of the generic idea of 3D chess. I wouldn't be surprised if Star Trek Chess was merged into the 3D chess article, but it shouldn't domiated the article now that it is here. Same for the 5x5x5 Chess, it's an idea that shouldn't dominate the article above the original idea of 3D Chess. I want to check the references for less specific (not Star Trek, not 5x5x5 Chess) ideas to expand the article in favor of the main article's title's subject matter. I believe it is important to have a description of how the pieces move that is independant of a particular variant. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
♦ I added a new reference (Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1995), The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press (USA), ISBN 0-192-80049-3 ) which I hope will help bring better balance to the article. I don't live in the city anymore so it will be a while before I can look through it for nuggets of material, but I know their libary has a copy. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
♦ Because we are mistakenly using diagonal movement synonymously with cube edge movement "Pawns capture diagonally as in chess, including one step upward (White) or downward (Black), through a front or side cube edge." doesn't clearly describe what I can visualize of the moves myself. I recommend separating the "normal" (as in chess) pawn moves from the vertical moves:
"Pawns capture diagonally on the same level (through the side edges of the cube) as in chess, plus the edge toward the forward cube, upward for White or downward for Black."
Not for the article but personally I don't think this is a generic 3D chess restriction, as that cuts the possible verticle pawn moves in half. It assumes only the farthest opposite-side edge be use for promotion, probably why the promotion rule is that way. It is already possible for opposing pawns (in 3d chess) to move around eachother so the extra restriction making it harder for pawns to block each other doesn't make sense to me. Just to ponder, on a parallel thought, if you follow the "Air, Land, Sea" 3D analogy through this, I don't see why White should start in the air and Black should start in the sea. . 24.79.40.48 (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got several topics going on here really, and none of them described really by the sec name. Ok ...

• The Tri-D section doesn't really "dominate" the article, since it comes second after Raumschach sec, and is roughly the same size as that sec. But I understand what you mean. (5x5x5, and Tri-D together, "dominate".) I guess I have three observations ... One is that in the history of the article, it previously contained 8x8x8 (Bornert) content, but that was thrown out when two Admins came in and challenged the notability (existence of RS). The other is that Millennium was earlier a part of the article, I moved the content to its own article for no other reason than keeping this article's size down. Last, the lede makes reference to many forms of 3D chess (over 50 in Pritchard's book), although I didn't create the original structure of this article (a generic lede naming Raumschach the oldest and "classic", then content on Raumschach, Tri-D, 8x8x8, and Millennium), the structure does seem reasonable seeing that those versions are major notable samplings of a field where attempting to cover more would prove unwieldly. (I think your idea re describing "how the pieces move that is independent of a particular variant" would really prove impossible to implement, since you'd be hard-pressed to define generalized piece move patterns [consider Schmittberger's "3D Hook Move Chess" for instance], and if you attempted to do that, it'd end up WP:OR anyway, or perhaps a big table as in article Draughts.) At any rate, a radical rewrite of the article s/ be weighed carefully (and of course find consensus), seeing the article gets over 336 views avg per day (last 30 days).
• On the topic of pawn move/capture description, I've opened a special Talk sec below. (Your edit technically dropped off capture options, and the object of better clarity is good, but I don't think your phrase "the edge toward the forward cube" improves clarity, I think the meaning is ambiguous and confusing.)
• Regarding Hooper/Whyld book, I have the '87 ed. but don't see anything it might add to the article. (Maybe later versions contain something, I dunno.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

pawn capture

Reverted the edit, since it changed pawn capture descript from correct to incorrect. (It dropped off pawn captures, say for White, in upward diagonal direction to the sides.) (There are other probs too, but let's agree re rules first.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok wait a minute, I must have been really tired because the diagonal moves are for the capture, and I was somehow mixing them up. The pawn would only just move forward through the front face of the cube or up through the top face for Black and down through the bottom face for White, duh. I must seemed crazy to have claimed to be clearing things up when I actually mixed them together. No the description I added was for capture, and then what I just wrote for movement only should clear things up. Sorry.
Hold on again, I reread what I wrote and it is talking about captures and it is correct. Diagonals, in 3D chess we are talking about the edges... Ok, I missed the side vertical diagonals, now I see what you mean. There are five edges of capture, two forward and three vertical - down for white, up for black. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I never though of describing the Knight move as a merger of a Pawn's attack move with a capture move until just now. Cool. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ I would also like to address the idea that the generic part of this article can't be improved, by adding a chart that shows each piece (right side) and all the possible parts of the cube to move through (top side), for each piece. Highlighting that the Queen for example moves through 6 faces, 12 edges, and 8 corners, yet the Rook has a lower ratio increase with only the 6 faces.
Queen's 8 to 26 = 225% increase, while the
Rook's 4 to 6 = 50% increase.
I'll work on it another day and post it here first. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

From rook to queen is 6 dir to 26 dir (333% increase, not 225%). But I don't know how a Raumschach table of stats in the lede is going to improve the "balance of the article", and it seems like OR to me.

♦ No, I was talking about "8" 2D moves and "26" 3D moves, of the Queen. 225% is the difference, you're using the total to represent the increase.
"4" to "4" Rook moves is 100%, add the the top and bottom faces of the cube for 6, 150% is a 50% increase. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. But I don't know why you are doing comparison analysis between 2D moves and 3D. IMO to include a chart about that is OR. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are exceptions to the OR rule, and listing basic moves has to be one of them. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your chart (lower on this page) and compared it to the reference you used. Not OR at all. The now-blocked editor above is wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not correct. (The chart in question, was drawn from Chessvariants.com Raumschach article. However, the chart is being used here, in the lede for 3D chess variants generally, and not Raumschach specifically. The chart does not explain or help understanding of 3D chess variants generally, which vary consierably, and in fact are all over the map when it comes to piece movements. The chart reflects Raumschach specifically, and would be appropriate in the Raumschach section of this article, but not in the lede, where it implies relation to *all* 3D chess variants generally. If the chart is used, it would be applicable to the Raumschach section, and should be located there, not in the lede, where it misleads that it applies to 3D chess variants generally, when it does not, and cannot. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note that White starts on 'A' (bottom) level. (What you've been writing suggests you think White starts on 'E' level.)

I really don't know what you're dissatisfied with, what you think needs changing. "Better balance" is amorphous. A total re-write should be discussed & planned carefully w/ more than two-editor consensus me thinks (not that I agree). We're just chatting here. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ I guess I could have been more clear that I'm not talking about improving the Raumchach portion with the chart, only the first third, that part that shouldn't be specific to one variant. I know you have said there are a lot of variants that are different (sic), but I am sure you are wrong, there must plenty that have enough similarities or they wouldn't be called chess. I think that aside from fixing the capture description, which I still think is unclear, (are there 5 capture moves? Side top/bottom edge captures?) I wouldn't change the Raumchach section any more.
♦ You said you created this article, and you want at least three people to agree that anything needs to be changed, and no offence, but from these kinds of comments I'm starting to feel some possesiveness for your work in the article. I don't think the whole article needs to be wiped clean, I just don't like the 3D Chess' intro section doesn't talk more about 3D chess.
♦ You said already you are using the main variants as 3D chess examples but that they are the main ones is a matter of opinion. I wouldn't remove them, but plenty of articles add summary sections with a link under the heading to the main article, and it just occured to me that you could add a couple more summary examples. That's one idea, but my main concern is to improve the main beginning generic 3D chess section.
♦ On the suggestion of OR, that's silly because describing the parts of the cube is not original. And illustrating the moves the pieces make is not original. Doing it in a different way than you have done doesn't make it original research or even synethsis, just describing what is. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I understood you the first time, that you want to put a generic chart describing 3D moves in the article lede. I commented that I think it would be quite impractical to produce such a chart, seeing how many 3D vars have diff types of moves. It would be a massive chart with little payback IMO. And perhaps the effort itself would be OR as well. Those are my comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did I say I "created this article"? I never wrote that. What I wrote was that the history of the article included having a structure (when I first happened along) of a lede intro identifying Raumschach, a Raumschach section, a Tri-D section, and material on Bornet 8x8x8 and Millennium. That is what I said.

I suggested that if you wanted to change the article structure, or its emphasis in a major way (which it seems like you want to do), then a consensus is called for, seeing there are 336+ views of the article per day. And from there, you suggest or accuse of "possessiveness"?? Excuse please. I explained in detail on my Talk regarding removal of "movable attack boards", where you also jumped the gun and accused of "possessive vandalism". You also exaggerated, saying your edit "keeps getting removed", when in fact it was just the one time. Quite frankly, I have had about enough of this from you. I don't need to take your crap. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: "[...] fixing the capture description, which I still think is unclear, (are there 5 capture moves? Side top/bottom edge captures?)" Here is how the article currently describes pawn captures: "Pawns capture diagonally including one step upward (White) or downward (Black), through a front or side cube edge." Are you saying the description is not clear, because it does not count them? In the diagram in the article, captures are indicated by "x". (There are five "x"s in the diagram, but they are not counted.) You are complaining about need for better clarity, but exactly what is not clear from you. Your own description edit was incorrect, as we agreed, but the text attempted to be used added even more confusion. So what is your complaint? Be specific. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: "On the suggestion of OR, that's silly because describing the parts of the cube is not original." It would be silly to say OR, if that's all you'd be doing. If you wanted to simply "describe the parts of a cube", you could simply refer readers to article Cube. But that's not what you'd be doing. You'd be attempting to draw out general patterns, and achievability of that task aside, I'm saying that intent & effort is probably OR.

You wrote: "Doing it in a different way than you have done doesn't make it original research or even synethsis, just describing what is." Again, I'm not the one who "did it that way", I started w/ my edits at a time the article had its fundamental structure and emphasis. And regarding "it's just describing what is", no, you are proposing either a summary table that presents generalized move patterns (a synthesis), or, a comprehensive table listing game-specific moves (an insurmountable task). By "what is", it's unclear which you mean. Let's suppose you mean the former, a summary, presenting generalized move patterns. On what will you base your findings? Specific games? For what purpose? To pull out patterns? If so, IMO, that is a research and analysis effort that equals OR. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ "Thx for the invite. I know I created that article (it deserved one), but it isn't really 'my game'."
- I see I misapplied your quote, you were talking about creating the Millennium 3D Chess article. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
♦ I don't consider a tally of attributes to be original research or insurmountable. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

► I finally got to looking at the reference for 3D5/Raumschach Chess (http://www.chessvariants.org/3d.dir/3d5.html ), and I think I could have tried harder to visualize capturing through sideways vertical diagonals, it's easier if you just rotate the whole thing, but I see now with the acending/decending restriction how it makes five capture moves, although it is strange for the first set of pawns to have a row of pawns in the way to start. The fifth diagonal forward has to be there or you are only giving lipservice to the idea of movement in 3D as this move is the middle diagonal between the forward two diagonals and the verticle two diagonals. So I will make what I think to be the appropriate clarifications to the 3D5/Raumschach chess section to make is as easy as possible to understand without being too wordy. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixing this 3D Chess Article is going to take "3+" editors

♦ Does the introduction to this article adequately describe how most 3D chess variants are played and/or what they have in common,
or can more be added to this important section that expands the generic 3D chess idea and what all the variants have in common?
If one can answer the question "what is 3D chess?" then one can list the attributes, chose variants that fit that answer,
otherwise if one can't answer the question, then does the idea of "3D Chess" even deserve its own article?
There is an editor here who objects to changes or any improvements being made without the consensus of three or more editors.
So I am requesting help with the improvement of the introductory generic section of this article. Thanks. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference in the lede to 50+ 3D variants in Pritchard's book, is enough to indicate the enormity of that task that you suggest can be beneficially performed. I highly doubt it. (Start with Schmittberger's "3D Hook-Move Chess", and you will begin to see the problem.) IMO such an endeavor to generalize, is probably an OR research effort to begin with. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A list of attributes that so many have in common would not be Original Research. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The trick is in the phrase: "that so many have in common". That is a supposition by you, that IMO, you have no idea is really achievable or not. You are assuming. (And even if achievable, it is an analysis or research effort that equals OR.)

Regarding "it's just describing what is", no, you are proposing either a summary table that presents generalized move patterns (a synthesis and conclusions), or, a comprehensive table listing game-specific moves (an insurmountable task). By "what is", it's unclear which you mean. Let's suppose you mean the former: a summary presenting generalized move patterns. On what will you base your findings? Specific games? For what purpose? To pull out patterns? If so, IMO, that is a research and analysis effort that equals OR. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, you have no idea of the impossibility of what you are supposing can be done (tho, it seems to suggest itself, and if could be done, would be a good thing). Let me give a little example ... The rook move in 3D. I'm sure, you are presupposing that a generic description of rooks moving in 3D chess gamespaces will include *vertical moves*, yes? Okay. But did you know that for Tri-D, neither Bartmess Fed Standard Rules, nor Meder Tmt Rules, include or allow vertical moves by rook or queen? So what do you propose to do about that fact? (Throw out Tri-D from your summary analysis, because it doesn't fit in to your presupposition? Or leave it in, as an "exception", along w/ myriad other exceptions, in your plan to generalize? Huh?) Alice Chess is also considered a 3D game, and it does not permit vertical moves. But "Ms. Alice Chess", a variant, does. So what do you propose to do with that fact? (Throw out the original? Throw out the variant? Claim one is an aberration of your concluded generalized move pattern? Claim they are both represented in "what is" and conclude there are two generalized move patterns? What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ I don't consider a tally of attributes to be original research or insurmountable. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
♦ I've played Alice Chess and there is nothing 3D about it (it's a mirror not a level), that's a nutty suggestion. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
♦ I had no idea that in Star Trek Chess pieces don't have verticle moves, maybe that's why it should be called Star Trek chess rather than categoriezed as a genuine 3D game where pieces make real use of all "three dimensions." I was thinking there should be a redirect under the main title heading for all the internet search results for 3D Chess that are just for 3D graphics not 3D moves. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
♦ I don't mean to be rude but 3D has a simple definition, and it seems like you are deliberately putting up stumbling block(s) against the improvement of this article. "3D Chess" in my mind is just what it describes. If you insist on calling something like Alice Chess 3D, then you can ascribe the 3D idea to anything, put a regular chess board on its side with platforms for each square so that there are 64 cubes instead of 65 squares and you could call regular chess 3D. I don't find your fear of change here to be justified or rational, despite your proposing exceptions and entaglements, the question "What is 3D Chess?" has to have an answer or it does not deserve an article, and if that question can be asked then the list of variants that fit that answer/definition can be tallied. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Already been done to a large extent, by Pritchard, and Beasley. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ Three chess boards, lined up so that they are 90° from each other, the corner "cube" where all three meet would have the same color on all three "visible" sides. This arrangment is what best illustrates three dimensional chess to me. Put any piece in that corner "cube" and you can easily see from a normal 2D move made in any of the three boards comprises all the 3D moves for that piece. It is a lot more simple to me than you describe. Just because someone puts the 3D label to their made up variant, like Tim O'Lena's 3D Chess, doesn't mean it really should be called a 3D Chess variant... And I would have to guess you haven't played the Notibility card because it doesn't apply to Content. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You wrote: "It is a lot more simple to me than you describe." Somehow, I'm not surprised. (Let's see, you're unaware of Star Trek rules, unaware of Schmittberger's variant, even unaware of the Beasley quotation re multiple board variants can also be considered 3D, in the article's lede. You want a radical rewrite of the article emphasis based on your "simple" vision of what 3D means, and you don't consider that OR to do your own investigation, even though has been done already extensively by Pritchard and in Beasley's book. Any thoughts about the wisdom of your idea is unnecessary "fear", "complication", and "entaglement". Meanwhile when I give my own opinion and suggest that it is OR and that I don't necessarily agree, it means I'm "blocking progress". And when I suggest consensus with other editors first, I'm a "possessive vandal"; besides being "silly" and "nutty" and "irrational", too.) I'm clipping off here (the rest wouldn't be as gracious). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not intimidated by your comments... Chess is played on squares & 3D Chess is played in cubes... if you have to accuse me of Original Research for saying that
then I would have to assume you have some sort of agenda here. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already used "cube" concept in several descriptions, you aren't introducing anything new, though you seem to be claiming to. I stated that your grandiose table idea and research effort to uncover "generic 3D moves" is probable OR IMO. (Of course you like to twist that and say I've "accused *you* of OR", attempting to make things unnecessarily personal, as well as the collection of insults from you summarized above. Where do you get off?? You really demonstrate the collaborative spirit of WP I must say. Not. Yet you accuse any caution or lack of agreement on my part as "possessive vandalism" and "agenda" driven. I also see on Deng's page you accused me of ... what? ... profiting financially from secret advertisements you suspect I get kick-backs from, in ELs I've placed!!? Huh??! You think that's pretty cool, or what?! Do you have any more totally fabricated and slanderous accusations based on the "lots of suspicions" you carry in your head? Amazing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ I found this site that supports the idea the there are baseline rules that many 3D Chess games have in common. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The "nutty suggestion" that Alice can be considered a 3D variant isn't mine, it is John Beasley's (editor The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. 93). Of course you don't mean "any offense", suggesting on my Talk that I am a "possessive vandal". Of course you aren't "rude" at all, suggesting I am "deliberately blocking improvement" of the article. Short of a few choice expletive-deleteds, we're done talking. (BTW, please stop copying from my Talk to this page. I'm removing said copies.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah ... almost forgot ... what I've written demonstrates I've been also "silly", "fearful", and "irrational". Oh thanks so much for those comments. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well not taking your comments out of context, I hope that means you won't be impeding the improvement of this article any longer.
And if you are willing to edit/erase my posts (quoting anyone), then I don't think you can be trusted to edit here.
It just looks to me like you are confirming my suspicion by deleting incriminating evidence.
BTW, I don't care who the suggestion that Alice Chess is a 3D chess game belongs to, it's still a nutty suggestion. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

... Showing you really do not understand WP. WP is driven by RS. Pritchard and Beasley books are RS for the subject. You are calling an idea from those books "nutty". Having an opinion is fine, but your opinion or OR doesn't belong here; only what's published in RS. That's basic to WP, even you disagree w/ it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ "3. All squares in a single vertical stack are of the same color: for example, a1 is a black square on each of the 8 8x8 levels." - This tells me that the www.chessvariant.org site is garbage for use as any kind of example in the 3D chess article, as having all the cubes in one column one color is absurd as having all the cubes in one row one color. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Incrimating evidence"?? (You mean "incriminating"?) What "crime" are you referring to? You are full of BS. You can "hope" anything you want. My Talk page posts have context on my Talk, not here. I've asked you to not copy my Talk posts here. This is second request. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a request, you are vandalizing my post by removing the quote, you can't claim copyright of a quote, that's more silliness. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Who claimed copyright? I asked you to not copy my User Talk posts and paste here. Their context is my User Talk, not here. Deng told you what you're doing is rude. In response you bait and belittle, calling name "silly" again for something I never said. Where do you get off?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You opened this section in attempt to gather ... it's not really clear ... consensus for altering the primary emphasis of the article, to include a summary investigation table to uncover and describe "generic 3D chess moves". (See discussion above.) I suggested I don't agree, and that such plans for change should be weighed carefully, and consensus be found, considering 336+ views on the article per day.

Now, without any consensus, or even response to the section except mine, you seem to think you can just barrel ahead? (Yes?) And that because I've declinded any further content discussion with you, because of your constant stream of insults, it means I won't "be an obstacle to progress for the article"!?! Huh?!

Please let us all know *here* (below), where your consensus is, okay? (You certainly don't have agreement on my part. Duh.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

HEY!! Everybody calm down and stop using terms like "vandal" "fear of change" "[not] rational" "nutty" "full of BS" "Where do you get off?", etc. That kind of behavior is unacceptable here. Knock it off. See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also, reacting to such comments is generally considered to make the problem worse. See WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My comments ("BS" and "where do you get off") were after and in response to being on the receiving end of a stream of insults and invented baseless accusations. (So I don't buy the "I'm uninvolved so please listen to me ... you're all equally guilty here" assumption you bring to the table here. You weren't in my shoes in this article Talk, please read it in full and try to imagine the anon comments were targeting you, not me.) Go take a look at the anon's work on Kepler etc., where he calls other editors "silly", "nonsense", demands a generalized table in light of rejection by others as to appropriateness, and generates an amorphous RFC. Same pattern as he did here. This is what I love about WP. It's so nice here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read the anon's comments here and elsewhere and conclude anything other than deliberate attempts to bait, disrupt, and make personal insults for purpose of bullying his own way and showing disrespect to anyone who disagrees with him, then I think I will fall over dead in astonishment. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Kepler article had several science types following and monitoring the article to oppose the anon's forcefulness, by compare this chess article has hardly a pulse of steady contributors, and I have zero percent likelihood of even considering entering again any content dialogue w/ said anon after already experiencing his stream of abusiveness. (Why would I do that to myself?) So on what basis would I revert him in order to dialogue here about it? I have a real puzzlement how WP expects to operate like that, a voluntary org with no pay. On what basis would I want to interface w/ this anon over content about ... anything?! When there is no accountability or even responsible dialogue, just insults, imagined crimes, false accusations, on and on. This really sucks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I'm sincerely curious and puzzled how "where do you get off?" is a bad thing to say after being on receiving end of a stream of insulting remarks and accusations, but "knock it off" is okay to say if you don't like seeing what you've read here? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell me what the WP rules are which cover this anon coming in, making a stream of derogatory insults and false accusations. I'm supposed to shut up and take it?! No one is paying me to suffer that. I asked Deng what mechanism in WP stops a user from making an unending stream of insults and false accusations, and got no answer, only crap back. I really want to know. I've also written an Admin offline, asking same Q. The WP environment is shitty that allows this; I'm responding to it after it has already become way more than tolerable. I'm supposed to set the dial back to zero as though nothing happened, because you come in after all the damage has already been done, and order it to stop? That's not realistic expectation. I'm not a computer you can hit "reset" button, even though that's simplest for you and easiest from your view. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming in here and bolding CIVIL and NPA is a bit presumptuous, I know what those policies are. The anon apparently feels he can get away with nearly any insult and false accusation, and get away. (And indeed, hasn't he?) To come in here, after I'm the one on receiving end, and scold me like a child along with the anon, is not right. You can stop treating me like a child, thank u. I encourage you to read the entire dialogue with the anon, including on my Talk where he extended dialogue there, before feeling superior whereby you can treat me like a naughty misbehaving child. The remarks I gave the anon, in light of the insults and false accusations, were mild. Many senior editors use "Fuck off!" liberally and when they feel appropriate, and you come down on my case for telling someone his false accusations are "BS" and asking him where he "gets off" after his stream of insults and digs? Give me a break. I'm not a child for your free reprimand because you think things are so easy here. The fact is there is a big imbalance here as to which side the fence the insults started and currently lay. Go read the entire Talk before you comment and make easy fast conviction you somehow know better and can be in "teacher" position to scold because you were "not involved". I did no thing but respond to the unceasing abuse from the anon, after taking his crap for too long and biting my tongue. And after that, what came out my mouth was mild. You have no right to reprimand me. Not accepting your self-annointed superiority to do so. You weren't in my shoes. Don't tell me how it feels. Don't tell me to be a robot and take the extended abuse without comment. I don't like or approve of the incivility on the Talk, but I didn't start it, nor did I return baiting insults and false accusations. You introduced the topic of "behavior" on this Talk. This is my response to being treated like a child by you, equally to the offending anon. Not equal situation. Even though that works best and simpliest for you. But I'm the one having received the abuse, not you. So I'm not exactly cool with your high-horse position. Be in my shoes a little then I could take your assessments more seriously. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me start by addressing 24.79.40.48. I am about to tell Ihardlythinkso some truths that he will not like. That does not imply that you are free to continue abusing other editors. Your violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are worse than his. As I said before, knock it off.

::Now for my response to Ihardlythinkso.

Let's start with the obvious. Three long and angry posts without waiting for a response are not a constructive way to respond to someone asking you to calm down and follow Wikipedia policies. More light and less heat, please. Please respond to criticism in a calm, logical, concise, fact-based and policy-based manner. If your arguments are valid, they will prevail. If they aren't, turning up the aggression knob to 11 will not improve them.

As for your basic argument, you claim to be familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Could you please quote the exact section of those policies where you are allowed to violate them if someone else did it first?

Also, you say you "asked Deng" and "an Admin offline" about how to deal with incivility. If, as you claim, you are familiar with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, why did you ask them instead of following the clear instructions in the "Dealing with incivility" section?

Finally, several of your comments appear to be variations of "who do you think you are!" and "you have no right to scold me!" -- in other words questioning my authority to demand that you follow Wikipedia's WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA policies. Nobody here, from an IP editor making his first edit to the founder of Wikipedia, has any special authority to ask you to follow Wikipedia's policies. Anyone is free to do so. Your only appropriate responses are to either start following the policy, or to -- calmly and concisely -- explain why you believe that the policy is being misinterpreted or misapplied. Again, more light and less heat, please. ^{Struck out my comments. See below.} --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I stuck out the above as being moot; User:Ihardlythinkso has been indefinitely blocked for "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility". See User talk:Ihardlythinkso#Indefinitely blocked --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Reversed by ArbCom. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Introduction: what does "3D" actually mean?

Getting back to the question "Does the introduction to this article adequately describe how most 3D chess variants are played and/or what they have in common? I don't think the intro should describe all of that. Look at Chess and Poker. Chess describes one game and the lead gives a brief overview of some rules (but not how the pieces move), while Poker, like 3D chess, describes a family of games and has a lead that only describes what they all have in common. We need to first describe what 3D chess - the general concept - is and only later describe how various implementations are played.

So, what do all 3D chess games have in common? They are not 2D games. A 2D game is any game where you can only move left, right, forward, backward, or some combination (diagonal of Knight move, for example) and you can describe the start and end of a move with X and Y coordinates. What every 2D game has in common is that the words "up" and "down" have no meaning. In 3D chess you can arrange the board(s) so that those terms have meaning. Just because you can play on side-by-side boards, that's just a convenience - you can stack the boards and play the same game. So Alice chess is 3D - play it on two stacked boards and "up" and "down" have meaning. Doublewide chess is not 3D - no matter how you arrange the boards a destination square can be descibed by X and Y (no Z) coordinates.

That leaves things like cylinder chess. Cylinder chess is played on a 2D surface of a 3D object. I would call that 2D - the phrase "move your pawn down" has no meaning. Others might call it 3D - neither description is obviously wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to tell you before I begin to disagree with you, that I agree on your thinking about the difference between 2D Chess and 3D Chess, I improved the initial phrase based on that perception. And I agree that what 3D variants have in common is important, and whether you use the terms "up" or "down" or not is very important, and reminds me of the "Flatland analogy" that Carl Sagan used in Cosmos.
I have to pointedly disagree with you on Alice chess as the theme is about passing through a mirror, not up or down, and the moves to the other board are a representation of going to the same spot in another parallel universe, if you will. I need to give your prespective more thought before I continue. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think using X,Y, & Z coordinates for the notation of the piece moves is a very notable thing for the into as a thing 3D chess variants have in common and a also pointedly a defining concept. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Another notable for the intro is that because of the extra space with the addition of the third dimension, a lot of variants add more pieces and those extra pieces end up being fairy pieces. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

New lead graphic

IMO, I see *no value* to the article, contributed by the recently added lede graphic. (It is eight 8x8 boards. So what? "An example of 3D chess"?! What example? Where's the ref? Where are rules?) This particular graphic was associated with an article that went AfD and was removed. So what game does the graphic associate to? Is there any content in the article about said game? What point does this graphic serve? What information is contained in: "An example of 3D chess"? And how is that true without tying the graphic to a specific game? I don't see any sense here.

I'm sure I'm being "obstructionist to the progress of the article" because I have an "agenda" and am just adding unnecessary "complexity and entaglements" by asking the above questions and having a view. Right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding graphics for the article, I see the anon wants to add to Commons "any way possible" a photo of "Batman 3D Chess", because he thinks the photo is "cool". Oh gosh, now I understand his true objective to make progressive improvement to the article. (How could have have been so dense?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the above three paragraphs closely.

Paragraph one is a perfectly normal discussion about how to improve the article, which I will address below. If only you had stopped there...

Paragraphs two and three are simply you trying to pick a fight. Stop doing that. Nobody cares what the motivations were for adding that graphic. It either improves the article or it doesn't. Also, you might want to stop calling IP editors "anon." Editing without logging in is less anonymous than using a user name.

As for the question at hand, I don't see any way it improves the article, and thus I have removed it. If anyone believes it should be there, please discuss your reasons here. We can easily put it back if you make a compelling argument for inclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I added the diagram because this article doesn't seem so much about three dimensional chess as it does about TWO specific variations that have there own expository sections, and I keep thinking there should be more generic across the board ideas about 3D Chess added to the 3D Chess article. The graphic is to me the most fundemental idea where 3D is concerned. It is 3D Chess as far as I am concened, but it has not taken practical popular interest only because it is not practical to play to actually have a game on a board with (8x8x8) 512 cells. But for the very literal chess in three dimensions, coming from 2D chess, which is 8x8, it is obvious to anyone who can reason, that the extention in to a third dimension, 3D chess, would be 8x8x8, and that is exactly what that diagram that was removed represents, it represents "The 3D Chess."
If anyone can find a better one, since I can not add one and had to use what came up in searches, I would be glad to see the addition. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your reasoning is good, and I agree that an 8x8x8 picture would be a good thing, but side-by-side boards are not a good answer. Better to wait until we have a good image. Perhaps someone who is good at graphics could make something that is a bit like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:My_Cubic_Chess_graphic.png and a bit like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:My_Millennium_3D_graphic.PNG but with an 8x8x8 board and 8 sets of pieces. Normally I would ask whoever created those two images, but they were made by a user who is indefinitely blocked. See User talk:Ihardlythinkso#Indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Creating an 8x8x8 chessboard graphic would be a cinch, but why ever, would anyone want to put an 8x8x8 picture of a chessboard, in the lede? How could doing so possibly be "a good thing" or "good reasoning", when there is *no* notable 8x8x8 chess game in existence? (Can anyone name even one notable 8x8x8 chess game? No? Then why ever put such a picture for such game, in the lede?! Doing so suggests there is such a game, but in fact there is no notable 8x8x8 game. So to suggest such a game, in the lede, when there is no such game, is branching into WP:OR in many ways. No 8x8x8 notable game exists. So how can an 8x8x8 picture of such a chessboard have any purpose (other than for purpose enjoined with WP:OR)? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Reversed by ArbCom. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Although arbcom lifted the indefinite block (and I agree; a 48 hour block would have been more appropriate) nobody has taken back the finding that you were engaging in "persistent, highly confrontational, disruptive editing" and "repeated personal attacks and quick and consistent disregard for civility in the face of conflict." If you go back to your old ways you will be blocked again. If, on the other hand, you start taking WP:CIVIL seriously you will be in a good position to report anyone who isn't civil without fear of WP:BOOMERANG and they will get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Talk is to improve the article, not lecture other users w/ your opinions. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to agree with you but I can't, I see a difference between a photo and graphic, where you are suggesting what seems to me to be a picture of the setup of a 8x8x8 3D chess board with pieces, and I am just looking for anything that says 8x8x8 3D Chess. And I know that the original use of that graphic was for an article that has been delete, but that graphic can be copied and modified and uploaded again, and it can have added to it the pieces and the labeling so that it is clearer that there are stacked levels. You yourself explained that by definition it is the "up" and "down" movements from level to level that make any given variant 3D Chess, and that people don't have to actually stack the boards but just recognize what board represents what level. And it is then clearly defined/labelled in an upgraded/modified again-uploaded graphic I presume, unless you are looking for a pretty photograph, then that it would suffice. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Either a graphic or a photo is acceptable, and you don't have to worry about the nuts and bolts of uploading - I can make that happen as soon as we reach agreement. Speaking of which...

OK, we have two editors who disagree about something. Neither opinion is obviously wrong or obviously right, and it isn't something Wikipedia has a rule about, so we can't solve it that way. The next step is to throw the question open for discussion. If many of the other editors like your choice, then I will be glad to follow consensus. If we don't get enough opinions here after, say, a week, we can create an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, wait, those posts are seperate, so in first you say a graphic or a photo either is ok, and then you highlight that we need to have concesus, so what part is that you think we disagree on again? I mean if a graphic with the labels and levels and pieces is okay, the you just have to modify the one that was deleted to be clearer. Are you in agreement with me on that? BTW, while on the topic of modifying graphics, I believe the Raumschach green level graphic should have the lowercase letters along the bottom level's front and the numbers along the top level's side, as the notation. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I reread your comments and see that you issue is that the boards in the graphic are side-by-side, and if that's all it is then I would add the Batman image I suggested earlier, but again the best is one like the Raumschach that has the levels, ranks and files marked with the Uppercase, Lowercase letters, and the numbers. And also the represented pieces. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find that suggestion in the history (probably searching on the wrong wording) where can I see an example of this image? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

♦ The actual image.♦ The site I found it at. if you mean the Batman one.
"File:My Raumschach graphic.PNG|thumb|left|Raumschach board" - if you meant the Ruamschach board diagram.
I have to point out again that the Ramschach is a bad example as it has only the levels marked, not the ranks or the files. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Another image 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Another image, although 16 kings isn't my first choice. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Only the last image has 8 levels. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I pointed out at some point above, 8x8x8 Chess is impractical and basically only theoretical; I'm sure the average person would need eight times or more time to have an actual game, if they use eight sets of pieces as in that last photo. That's why for a photo I would settle for 8x8x4 or 8x8xN, or the 8x8x8 side-by-side diagram with the labels and a "normal" set up of pieces added. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If not one of those photos, then back to this graphic.

8x8x8 Chess,
An example of 3D Chess

To use this graphic what changes would have to be made. I could easily make a new one and upload it to Flickr.com 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

the chart

The chart I talked about...

Chess Cube Moves	Face Moves	Edge Moves	Corner Moves	Total Directions
Pawn	2	5 a	-	7
Rook	6	-	-	6
Knight	6	12	-	24
Bishop	-	12		12
Unicorn	-	-	8	8
Queen	6	12	8	26
King	6	12	8	26 b
a Only capture moves. b Only one cube at a time.
References.

Is this exposition original research, when in fact
it represents what is in the Raumschach section??
24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's right. It represents what is in the Raumschach section. (So, why isn't it located there?! When you locate such a chart in the lede, it implies the chart applies to 3D chess variants generally, which is incorrect.) The chart is misapplied by locating it in the lede – to put it there is misleading. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question of whether it is original research, we need to know what source you are using for the information. The Raumschach section is part of Wikipedia, and we cannot use Wikipedia as a source. perhaps the source is in the External links section? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Copied from above, http://www.chessvariants.org/3d.dir/3d5.html , and I would guess since Raumschach is considered a 3D Chess, it's reference should suffice. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking at that ref, I do not believe that the above chart is original research. Everything you put in the chart is directly supported by the reference.--Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

See comments elsewhere. The chart is specific to Raumschach, and was in fact drawn from the CV.com entry on Raumschach. It has no business being in the lede, as then it is misleading by implying that it applies to 3D chess variants in general (which it does not). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Orthodox Chess Square Moves	Orthagonal Moves	Diagonal Moves	Total Directions
Pawn	2	2 a	4
Rook	4	-	4
Knight	4	4	8
Bishop	-	4	4
Queen	4	4	8
King	4	4	8 b
a Only capture moves. b Only one square at a time.
References.

I wanted to also add a chart for comparison with reg./orth. Chess. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Any chance a game infobox like the one for Chess could be added to the article?

24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to think about that and also see if anyone else has any opinion. On the one hand, it would make this more like other, related pages, but on the other hand, the page is already cluttered looking. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Graphics

IP editor 24.79.40.48 has done a lot of good-faith work improving this article (and was subjected to some rather nasty treatment by a now-blocked user along the way), but -- and this is purely subjective -- I still don't think we have hit the target on an image in the lead that properly represents the idea of three-dimensional chess. Does anyone else have any ideas for the lead that are better than what we have tried recently? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In the mean time, I have to say I think the diagrams from regular Chess' article are very illustrative. What are your opinions on them?? 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Those graphics are duplicative of, and taken from, 2D chess. What purpose do they serve here? (To instruct? To instruct according to your own individual opinion re *how* 3D chess moves should be "visualized"? If those are the answers, then those reasons are in contention with WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. I see no purpose of 2D chess diagrams, other than for WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:ORIGINAL. How do you defend putting 2D chess diagrams in this article, if other than those reasons? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Order of variant sections

Variants Millennium 3D Chess and Cubic chess have been added to the article by an anon user. Okay. (Millennium was previously a part of this article, per its history; but then broken off into separate article. To return it to this article, is not something I have an issue with really, if someone wants to, and clearly the anon wants to.)

But what about the order here? Q: Shouldn't the order of variants presented here, be based on ... level of notability? (If not that criteria, then what criteria?)

Millennium is presented first by the anon. Is it really more notable than Raumschach? (No. Raumschach is "the classic 3D chess" [Pritchard].) So why is Millennium, presented *first*? (What basis? Raumschach should be presented first, based on notability.)

Also, Cubic Chess is presented, above Star Trek Chess. (Again, based on what? Notability? No way. I wrote the article section Cubic Chess, and this variant, is pretty much totally obscure, on dusty bookshelves, before the article section I created for it in the V. R. Parton article. Nobody plays this variant. I'd be shocked if any reader even heard of it before the article section I created. So why would it appear *before* Star Trek 3D Chess, which is tremendously more notable, hands down, by virture of public recognition, exposure, and even popularity re playing?! On what basis is Cubic Chess, appearing *before* Star Trek 3D Chess, in the article? What criteria for order of presentation? The order should be based on notability. [And, since Cubic Chess is so so so obscure, little heard of at all in the real world, I'm wondering *why* it is even appearing at all in this article. It scarcely has notability enough, to justify a section in the V. R. Parton article, let alone be featured prominently here, above Star Trek 3D Chess, which has wide public recognition.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Too many issues

I am soon to revert the article to an earlier version, to prior to the anon coming in in bully-like fashion to force his POV changes without consensus even after RfC. (The numerous insults from the anon drove me out of the discussion then, that is all I will say about it.) There are numerous problems with the changes the anon introduced, and it is simpler to revert to earlier issue of the article. Desired changes should be discussed individually on Talk, and be implemented after consensus. That is not what happened here. I fully support WP policy WP:BRD, there was no consensus for the article modifications and additions, and no non-bullying discussion. Several of the changes are counter to WP guides (WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO), and are out of context generally with 3D chess as presented in the only real "bible" RS on the topic - Pritchard's ECV and Pritchard/Beasley's Classified ECV - which the anon poo-poo'd. I've already documented most of the problems in recent additions to the Talk. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The above is a continuation of the behavior that got you blocked the last two times] You do not have consensus top make the changes you threaten to make above. I suggest that you try to form a consensus through persuasion. Calling good-faith editors bullies and POV pusher isn't going to convince anyone. It will get you blocked, though. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

More pompous lecturing from you, Macon? Based on what fiction? Anyone doing a fair reading of the anon's comments at me can confirm. The anon has modified the article according to his home-grown POV; as an editor who gives a shit I'm interested to defend the integrity of the article, and you threaten me. (I read in WP that is called "Randy enabling".) What is the logic in your claim about "no consensus" to revert? Take a good look: not one interested editor came to the article after the anon's RfC, and other posts elsewhere by you and the anon to solicit wider participation. (I have longer experience here, not surprised at that result, not wanting it, just anticipating it.) So without add'l editors who care about the article to form consensus with, what basis do you have claiming "no consensus"? I've been waiting patiently after registering my concerns here at article Talk. It isn't my responsibility there aren't add'l editors interested in improving the article/real content discussion for doing so. The topic deserves a more scholarly treatment, and the anon's is far from that. (Recall, the anon ridiculing what is most probably the "bible" of RS on this topic, Pritchard's ECV & Beasley's re-edition.) If the anon wants to participate without directly insulting me, calling me "obstacle to [his] improving the article", fine. Because that is not what happened, and I'm not going to pretend for you it did. My interest is in the quality of the article as interested volunteer editor here, you have no right to repeatedly attempt to smear and threaten me – that's uncivil, Macon. Do you think you're creating a positive effect here, for anyone? (How so?)

Just to assure, I'd respond positively to "trying to form a consensus through persuasion" – that is in no doubt. But as things stand, with no interested editors to discourse with, I'd be "talking to myself", and I see no point to a soliloquy, this is not a Broadway stage. (But meanwhile too, I don't have to tolerate your constant attempts to smear & threaten. You have no basis for the remarks you've made and continue making. I suggest you drop it or prey on someone else. Your comments about "bahavior" are insulting and unfair. When have you taken a look at your *own* behavior, Macon? Just because you have not been blocked doesn't mean you haven't been gruesomely uncivil; and contrawise, just because someone has been blocked, does not mean the block was warranted.)

I was wrong earlier in stating there was "no notable 8x8x8 variant". There are some. So I don't think all the suggestions from the anon to incorporate additions or changes are bad. He's probably right to include. But he hasn't done it in any way encyclopedic, and also without references. (The anon mentioned going out of town to a library for books to do research, but I see no evidence of that, nor was there any time interval prefacing changes to suggest he did.) He's also introduced a self-generated instruction-POV with the redundant 2D chess visuals (presumably in lack of better visuals, a mistake), and a POV what he considers 3D should be, or should be considered best to be (i.e., incorporating vertical moves). The article needs a more scholarly approach for including other 3D examples. (Until now I have not really added significant content to this article; I've simply edited the content already here from others. I moved Millennium out of the article, only because at that point I'd created the Millennium article, and to simplify the article here, because two admins then were having a hard time that the article mentioned too much, including non-notable variants. I think Millennium remained as a "See also", but perhaps to move it out was not what the admins were after – only non-notable variants. I was an inexperienced editor then, so a good chance I misinterpreted the admins' complaints.) The idea to enlarge the article is a raw idea at this point, one I don't object to, and as mentioned my focus till now has been editing existing content only, not expanding. At this point I could help that effort. But I'd like to start with the revert, for reasons mentioned. (I don't see any basis to come in and say "no"; the anon did a full-fledged WP:BRD, but without any D, or R. His comments at me were polar-opposite to "trying to form consensus through persuasion". Good faith or not, was not the issue.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for the other party interested in changes to this article (anon 24...48) to address discussion points. I'll try and summarize below the problems I feel are too many in the article, making revert to earlier status a more sensible plan than addressing the several individual parts. Then desired changes can be discussed and developed part by part the Wiki way (collaboration not exclusion).

• a. The 2D diagrams in lede are inappropriate in the article (WP:NOTHOWTO), and duplicative of Chess.
• b. The Raumschach table in the lede is inappropriate there (misleading), and its necessity, value, and weight should be discussion points (are questionable) even if relocated to Raumschach section.
  
• c. The order of variant presentation s/b according to variant notability, not to a POV preferring vertical-move 3D variants.
• d. The Cubic variant (Parton) is redundant to Raumschach (differing only by 6x6x6 vs 5x5x5 geometry), and is so obsure it has little contribution here I can see (except to serve to enforce a POV emphasizing vertical move variants over others through repetition).
• e. The chart included in the lede summarizing 2D chess moves presumably is for comparison sake against the moves in Raumschach, but the Raumschach chart does not belong in the lede as already mentioned, and the comparison itself is presumably instructional POV regarding how 3D moves should be understood according to the editor placing this chart, which is understandable because of its obviousness, but its own obviousness calls question to its necessity, besides objections that it is POV-instructional leaning on WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR.
• f. I'll grant that Raumschach moves are challenging to describe using language (i.e., in text), but I really question whether the description of the Raumschach pawn capture was improved in clarity and succinctness when it was changed in good-faith from this: "Pawns capture diagonally as in chess, including one step upward (White) or downward (Black), through a front or side cube edge." to this: "Pawns capture diagonally as in chess, including the two forward edges, two vertical edges (ascending for White, descending for Black) and the one forward edge that is ascending for White or descending for black."

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

After the revert to earlier status, I'd like to re-incorporate Millennium (per the anon), but after Raumschach and Star Trek 3D which have greater notability. We can easily find an 8x8x8 notable variant in ECV to include, I'd like to think about where to include; the article s/b allowed to evolve if it is to be expanded, not preplanned or executed at once), and we can include a 8x8x8 graphic suggested by Macon, which the anon was looking for. The anon has in the past introduced move counts of at least some of the Raumscach pieces, and these inclusions have been retained/incorporated. And this could be done fuller also, but I think it should be kept in perspective (e.g. using parentheticals or footnotes, not an attention-grabbing summary chart). (Because it is just information, the information varies depending on the variant, and a prominent chart confuses the importance away from the different nature of play in the 3D variant concerned to focus instead on move cell counts of different specific pieces – overkill and undue weight if charted.)

Again I think the anon's desire was to expand the article to incorporate add'l vertical move variants, it has historical basis, but should not be distorted or POV'd since none of those variants ever reached significant notability. (To have a view that 3D chess should be seen as 8x8x8 in preference to anything else is paramount to going back to 1850 (Kieseritzky) or earlier. Those version(s) could and should be presented encyclopedically and in historical context. To include fresh out of an editior's enthusiasm is an entreaty to fall into the mistake of reinventing the wheel and WP:OR.) Again I have never added significant content here, only edited existing content. I'm happy to help article expansion, and I think the anon's intent to do so was not wrong at all and would improve the article. But it isn't easy to do encyclopedically, would need some time, and the article s/b allowed to evolve to it, rather than undergo a re-org whirlwind based on little or no research. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

1907

1907 is the 20th century, not the 19th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Black unicorn & bishop initial positions

Both Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants have Black's unicorns on Da5 and Dd5. The Classified is quite specific about it: "White RNKNR fronted by 5xP on board A, BUQBU fronted by 5xP on board B, Black diametrically opposite on boards E and D (unicorns on Da5 and Dd5)." What is your source to change this? (If it is Chessvariants.com, the Raumschach graphic on that site is simply in error. Or else show why not, thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, see the comments by CV.com user Alfred Pfeiffer dated 2010-08-20 here. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, in A Guide to Fairy Chess (1971), p. 17, Anthony Dickins gives: "The initial array is: White [...] Black: [...] Bs Db5, De5; Us Da5, Dd5; [...]" And (p. 16–17): "The fullest and most detailed description of Space Chess in English is that given by T. R. Dawson in six consecutive numbers of the Chess Amateur in 1926, [...] We give here a description based on that given by T. R. Dawson in Elements of Fairy Chess, FCR 5/5p.40 and in the 1926 Chess Amateur." IHTS (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheop

I don’t don’t know how much ‘off-page’ development it got: but is it worth mentioning Cheop, the three chess game Frank Herbert mentions in Dune … ?

Cuddy2977 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

References

who do i talk to to have external links updated?

just want to know if i could include my group, being that we have over 100 members now, into the external links?

Board layout / Star Trek chess

The drawing of the board layout does not match the one visible in the photo from TOS right next to it (the small daugherboards are fixed to different main boards and in different array)... 93.104.79.72 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's because the 2×2 attack boards are designed to be movable (to any corner of a 4×4 main board). --IHTS (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

5d Chess

Should there be a reference to the game 5D Chess with Multiverse Time Travel on this page? It very much fits the theme, though it does technically have an extra dimension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3thanguy7 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No Star Trek mention in the lede?

Is there a specific reason for which the Star Trek connection takes up about half of the main body of the article, but is not even mentioned in the lede? Does anybody object to adding a sentence like "Tridimensional chess has often appeared in science-fiction, the Star Trek franchise in particular contributing to the game's familiarity."? PraiseVivec (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Observations...

There is wayyyy too much talk to sift through. I'd note that in the SF tech manual (published circa 1975), it appears that pegs protruding from the larger boards allow attachment of the four-square boards either downward or upward. I haven't researched it that much but I suppose it is possible that board placement is flexible as to where it is needed - that is, a vacant four-square board can be moved to another position to be used, but that would certainly risk wobbling the entire chess board; I suppose before starting a game, each player could choose where to put one or two boards to suit his planned strategy.

There was a 3-D chess set in the "Batman" episode "The Purr-fect Crime" but it looked unplayable except on the top layer and around the edges of the two lower layers. There was no room to reach in over the pieces and move them around, let alone see where they were for planning one's move. To spare this being obvious, Bruce and Dick barely touched the thing before Alfred summoned them to the study for a call from Commissioner Gordon. The Star Trek version, which originated at the same time in production of the second pilot, was much better designed to be usable, if undefined as to all its rules! GBC (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)