Talk:Bughouse chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	SG Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy • List of units and buildings in StarCraft Expand: HeroQuest (board game) • Boku (game) • Qubic • Death Stacks • Entropy (board game) • Fitchneal • Five Field Kono Copyedit: Crossings (game) • Gonnect • Quoridor • Company of Heroes • Dark Reign • Myth (computer game) Cleanup: Abalone (board game) • Age of Mythology • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

Contents 1 Some comments 2 Draws 3 Piece values 4 This article.... 5 Name

[edit] Some comments

Some comments from my corner of the world:

• We called it "Siamese" (not "Siamese Chess", because it isn't real chess)
• Typically, you could place a pawn on ranks 2-7, and pieces anywhere except to checkmate, but the second of these was by agreement: not being able to even place in check, or being able to place into checkmate directly, were not unheard of -- so before each game, you'd say "pawns on 2-7, place to check but not to mate, OK?"
• I am not sure 'Tandem chess' is synonymous with Bughouse. I thought tandem chess was a normal game of chess played between two teams each consisting of two players who are not allowed to consult eachother.
• 95% of the bughouse in the world is played on the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS). Buggers play 24/7/365 on this site. The strongest players in the world also play there daily. The website is http://freechess.org/ -JK
  • I originally wrote the Bughouse support into FICS. The development was my first exposure to open source and Linux, running a test server on a 386/40 out of my closet. I'm glad to see that it has continued to flourish on FICS. --IanOsgood 21:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• game sometimes played on 3 boards, its fun to play in the middle

[edit] Draws

• The rule about draws (one board a draw, entire game is a draw) I've never seen -- and can't imagine it being applied. Any stalemate can be broken by getting a new piece to place (I think). I can't imagine one board doing 50 repititions of a position in that time, especially if both sides could get extra pieces. And I've never seen anybody try to agree to a draw.  :-) When one side was in a position that would normally be a draw, that just means he's sitting on his hands until his partner gets him some more pieces.
  • I agree on all these points. I have never hade a draw game( what happens with 3 consecutive repeats?) and I play where pawns can be placed anywhere. Preventing pawn from begin placed on 2nd is a custom rule. BrokenSegue 17:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • • Draws are extremely rare in bughouse (I would say about 0.1% of games even among strong players). The most common draw is three move repetition. Often one can get a position where one can force an opposing king to move back and forth between two squares using a double revealed check with a knight in the corner, but if one doesn't have a mating position and your team is losing it is advantageous to simply force a 3-move repetition. I also heard of one case where both boards were stalemated (I think it was one of Ebenfelt's games). Sometimes people will agree to a draw as well, although this is rare since the pace of the game is so fast.

• • • • One other place where a draw occurs is when a player needs a piece for mate in 1, but if his partner takes this piece, he is himself mated in 1. This situation is considered a draw by many, and not a win for the one who shouts loudest, or has the best connection to the server. Ishamael 19:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piece values

The piece values listed are more or less POV. There is no set rule as to the value of pieces in bughouse, as it is very situational and steadfast rules like a queen is worth two pieces do not make much realistic sense. I would recommend that the section be changed to note that piece values differ from the values traditionally assigned in chess, without listing specific subjective values, or perhaps by listing some of the ways in which individual pieces can offer more or less value than expected. TAsunder 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is not with POV, but with verifiability. What source was used to give this values? I think we can check what piece values are used in Sjeng or Sunsetter bughouse engine and put them here (may be rounded to 1 decimal point afte the point). Andreas Kaufmann 17:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We could also check what openings are preferred by Sjeng or Sunsetter, but that does not mean they are the correct and only answer. They may be right for the two-player variation (crazyhouse) but for bughouse there are just too many variables. The game is not like chess where piece values are relatively easy to verify. The fact is that at certain points of the game, a queen may be worth much more than two pieces or much less. This is not really true in chess. Only in rare circumstances (end game promotion races or certain sacrifices) will the value of a queen vary so greatly. So whatever the source of the piece values listed in the article are, they are quite subjective. Many players would disagree with these values or have differing suggestions, whereas a minority players disagree with the value of chess pieces. To people who are new to the game, I think the piece value section is quite misleading. TAsunder 17:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

some players may disagree about the piece value and it is certainly less important than in chess, but still I think piece values is one of the first things you should learn when starting to play any 'chess-like' game. One instance where the piece values are quoted, is the legendary article by ErrantFischer 'TOP TEN WAYS TO TELL YOU HAVE A BAD BUGHOUSE PARTNER' Ishamael 19:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be a useful tool but it is still subjective. If it is not going to be removed, it could be at least qualified as a particular author's viewpoint and not necessarily as well agreed as chess point values. I would not want to play adhering strictly to the supplied chart, nor would I ever teach someone those values, even though they are as good as any. TAsunder 21:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, from the link given by Ishamael you can read that one strong bughouse player gives piece value suggested by bughouse god :-) and agrees at the end with them (see "#5: "I Am the God of Hell Fire!..."). So, looks like the piece values already are more or less established. Andreas Kaufmann 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you are comfortable calling a few people agreeing with something constituting an established fact, then by all means leave it in. TAsunder 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article....

The Bughouse article is just unbearably bad now. I was contemplating fixing it, but what’s to stop it from just degrading to uselessness again? To be honest this seems like a flaw with the whole Wikipedia concept. Sixty people just aren’t going to magically coalesce to write one good entry about Bughouse.

All you did was deleting information from the article. No one will say anything if you fix the article, but people usually do object and rewrite if you erase anything without a sensible reason! --Sibahi_talk 18:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're failing to understand is the deletions improved the article. No one plays "untimed games with a gentleman's rule is that a player may not delay his move beyond the time that it takes for his partner to make three moves." Lacking understanding of the subject, you seem to think that more text is better, even if the text itself is worthless. DrZukhar 21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know anyone who plays untimed games this doesn't mean they don't exist !! This fact is mentioned in the Chess Variants pages, so no I see no reason that it shouldn't be here. I am sure the editors there are more knowledgeable of this topic than you and me. And by the way, without this rule, chess amateurs who don't have two chess clocks won't be able to enjoy Bughouse properly. So please don't remove any information unless it was useless and against the policies of Wikipedia. --Sibahi_talk 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sibahit, “All you did was deleting information from the article. No one will say anything if you fix the article, but people usually do object and rewrite if you erase anything without a sensible reason!” The information I added about the Fizbin amendment to the untimed bughouse rules was very valuable. The entire Wikipedia is poorer because you, Sibahit, deleted it. If you don't know anyone who plays untimed games with the Fizbin rule this doesn't mean they don't exist !! So, Sibahit, please don't remove any information unless it was useless and against the policies of Wikipedia. DrZukhar 04:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Does anyone know where the name "bughouse" comes from? That's what I came to the article to find out, since I've never known for sure where such an odd name came from. -Phoenixrod 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From bughouse, it is slang for a mental hospital. The inference is that bughouse chess drives you crazy or looks like a gathering of maniacs to the casual onlooker. --IanOsgood 18:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)