Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Random Chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Random Chess

Hoax. I would Prod this but I expect it'd be pulled. From the article Chessmaster: Chessmaster 9000 comes with over 150 different personalities ranging from International Grandmaster strength down to Stanley, who is described as a monkey and plays what are essentially random moves. This simian personality has inspired a fictitious chess variant called Stanley Random Chess. See also this. Stand by for possible influx of chain-yanking. (N.B.: Please be careful how you vote - any vote, including BJAODN, may be taken by some admins as (effectively) a keep vote. If you think the article deserves a place in BJAODN (I don't), consider voting "Delete and BJAODN".) Herostratus 05:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Chessmaster page was actually incorrect in describing SR Chess as "fictitious". While much of the commentary and purported history of SR Chess is clearly exaggerated and fictitious, and functions as a spoof and parody of serious chess commentary, the game itself is real, as can be verified from the website where it is actively played. Another user has since (correctly) emended the Chessmaster reference from "fictitious" to "humorous". Gregorytopov 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment. First off, AfD is no longer VfD and therefore we are not voting to delete or keep this article. Second, I'm really not sure what to make of this. References to this "game" have already been inserted into the articles of Mornington Crescent (game) and elsewhere, yet I am very hard pressed to find anything on the internet about this game that has not been written by Mr. Topov. The author references a fan base that seems to include solely himself. I am going to hold off on a keep/delete decision for now, pending more information.
Right, about AfD, but rather than "vote" perhaps I should say "traditional bolded one-word summary prepended to your argument (TBOWSPTYA)". I'm just pointing out that a TBOWSPTYA of (say) 5 Delete and 5 BJAODN can result in a closing of "No consensus, keep". Herostratus

Isopropyl 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Patent nonsense and hoax. Bucketsofg 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disclaimer: I authored the page, so my vote probably doesn't count, but please consider the evidence and check the supporting links for yourself.
I agree that if the fan base only included myself, it would be nonsense, but that is not the case. Two supporting references from external web-sites, to verify the above information:
* 1. http://www.chessvariants.org/link2.dir/srchess.html This chessvariants.org site only lists bona fide playable chess variants, and does not publish hoaxes. The historical claims of SR Chess are disputable and much of the commentary is cloaked in humor, but its playability and authenticity as a real chess variant is genuine.
* 2. http://www.schemingmind.com/games.aspx?variant_id=15 This list gives the current games of Stanley Random Chess in progress at this correspondence chess server. Over 100 games of Stanley Random Chess have been played in the last ten days alone. In fact, an international tournament is currently in progress between ten players, as is evident here: http://www.schemingmind.com/minitournament.aspx?tournament_id=520 This information can be verified with the webmaster of the schemingmind.com website, Austin Lockwood.
Two external contacts I can give: Tony Quintanilla, registered editor of chessvariants.org; and Austin Lockwood, webmaster of schemingmind.com. And dozens of schemingmind.com members who are actively playing the game.
I can appreciate the scepticism, but in view of the above, the Chessmaster page is incorrect in calling Stanley Random Chess "fictitious." This is not the case, because SR Chess is in fact a real chess variant, admittedly inspired somewhat by the Stanley Random Chess personality from the Chessmaster software. By way of explanation, the game is a parody of chess in some respects, by featuring humorous commentary and analysis. But it is a real and serious chess variant, that is played actively online between human players, especially at schemingmind.com.
The game plays exactly like regular chess, but with some additional rules, as described in the wikipedia entry. The two main differences from regular chess are correctly described under the "Rules" section, i.e. approximately 50% of moves are randomly selected by a computer; and if the game goes beyond 30 moves, the game can apparently randomly end at any moment, the winner being the player with most material. If you try playing online at schemingmind.com, you will find these facts to be true, and that the game plays exactly in this way.
In short, although some of the historical claims and some aspects of the game are subject to exaggeration and humor (as referenced in the link posted by Herostratus), the game itself is not a hoax, because there are players actively playing Stanley Random Chess at a real correspondence chess server. If deemed necessary, the content on the wikipedia page can be modified to clarify this. If items like Mornington Crescent (game) and Mao (game) can have Wikipedia entries, the same applies to Stanley Random Chess. The game has aspects of humor and secrecy, but it is a real and playable game, as any active member of the above-mentioned correspondence chess server can verify. I am quite willing to have the content modified or clarified to meet Wikipedia standards and satisfy those with concerns, but a valid entry for Stanley Random Chess is justifiable, especially since it is referenced by the Chessmaster article (albeit incorrectly as "fictional"). Feel free to direct me with specific suggestions about how I should modify the content to make it satisfactory.Gregorytopov 05:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's a great lot of words which I'll look at when I can, but your argument is not aided by the fact that the "Historical origins section of the article includes passages such as "Documenting historical evidence that dates back to the early English monarchy..." which links, as reference, to a page which says "Until recently, it was incorrectly supposed that Stanley Random Chess owed its humble origins to... the lowest rated personality in the world-famous Chessmaster software... [but] Following concentrated studies of the Stanley family in early Britain... Goldman and Morgenstern provide solid evidence that the name "Stanley" originates with Sir Thomas Stanley (d. 1459)... The first mention of the game itself is found in historical accounts of the Ferrers family in 1137... In 1892, the Stanley Cup was sadly donated by the rebel Sir Frederick Arthur Stanley, from which time it was used as a trophy for amateur hockey in Canada. Frederick T. Stanley, who in 1843 founded The Stanley Works... was responsible for popularizing SR Chess in America..." The game may well be real, but mixing such faux history with the actual game is probably not a good way to get an article kept on Wikipedia. Perhaps a general cleanup of the article would solve the problem, assuming of course that the game itself is real. Herostratus 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Response. Good point. Even though the game is real (verifiable by the links above showing current games and a current tournament between multiple players), a Wikipedia article on the game should clear state that any claims about historical origins are exaggerated and intended to reflect humor rather than reality, even though the game itself is real. The same can be said about most commentary and analysis of the game, as described well below by another player of the game, surfnsuds. The paragraph on historical claims has currently been deleted by another editor - it probably should be reworked so that readers are informed about the wild claims, but made aware that while they are false the game itself is real, and that Monty Python style commentary is typically employed to accompany a real game, and is part of the attraction of the game. Gregorytopov 14:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Gregorytopov

Update It's real, and it's fun to play! I have played many games of Stanley Random Chess on Schemingmind.com over the last year or so. I enjoy it very much. It is worthwhile on a number of levels.

The game itself can be played to win, in spite of (and even taking advantage of) the random aspects (which are accurately described above, though I think the percentage of random moves are less than 50% as stated above - more like 30% is my guess). This aspect involves an exercise of basic statistics. The game also is unique in that one may make moves which in regular chess would appear to be blunders. However, again by playing the odds, you can frequently obtain advantage by making intentional "blunders". With study, you can determine which "blunders" can reault in advantage and which are not likely to. This aspect of the game to mind resembles bluffing in poker and is unique among the many chess variants I have played.

However, the most unusual and to my mind, the most fun aspect of the game is the tradition of creative, humorous commentary surrounding the game. The process is as mentioned above, similar to "Mornington Crescent" and the result reads more like Monty Python.

These points are intended to show that the game is viable and enjoyable for folks who tend to enjoy creative gaming. But they are my conclusions and opinions. Surely, however, the hundreds of games played to date at SchemingMind.com by dozens of players over the last year are a verifiable fact that proves the game is as real as tic-tac-toe.

I am brand-new to Wiki and have not figured things out yet. Bear with me. I am NOT GregTopov, but I admire his creation.

--Surfnsuds 20:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete hoax. Chess playing monkeys documented in non-existent books, huh? There may be a grain of truth intermixed in the lies somewhere. Even if those can be disentangled we are left with a non-notable nonsense game. Oh, and Mr. Topov, I'm glad the news of your death at the hands of escaped monkeys were exaggerated. Weregerbil 09:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only after tidying up and copyediting. Article does give sources. --Soumyasch 10:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note where those references point. A single geocities account with utter BS about the game, a copy of the BS, and a game server. This is something made up in school one day and then written up on a couple of web sites. Also compare the purpoted history of "Common Chess" and, well, reality. Weregerbil 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update To address the above concerns, any fictional claims have been deleted, and a section entitled "Parody and Humor" has been added to clarify what aspects of the game are real, and to explain the tradition of exaggeration and fiction associated with the game. To the best of my knowledge, the article in its present revised form is accurate and verifiable from the sources cited above. Gregorytopov 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Gregorytopov
  • Delete Seems anyone could invent anything and make an article out of it. Just mildly amusing hoax-cum-schoolboy-humour. Marcus22 16:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: check verification sources please! I'm a new user, so I want to be polite, but I'm disappointed that folks don't seem to be checking some of my sources for verification, and are suggesting that the game itself is a hoax.
    • YES - much of the commentary and history of the game is fictional, for the sake of parody; in fact this is precisely one attraction of the game for creative players who enjoy adding to the imaginary traditions surrounding the game, and this is now clearly described and admitted as such in the revised form of the article.
    • NO - the game itself is not a hoax, but is a legal and fun chess variant, as can be verified from this tournament and 100s of current games from multiple users (logging on as a guest may be necessary to view those pages).
Like Mornington Crescent (game), Stanley Random Chess involves much parody and fiction, but like Mao (game) it is a real game with real rules and is actively played by enthusiasts. Visit these links[1][2] to verify this, and you'll see for yourself that I'm not dreaming this up or perpetuating a hoax about a non-existent game played only by myself. Gregorytopov 16:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is badly written on a subject that holds little or no importance to chess, or to anything else for that matter. Regardless of whether it is fictitious or not, dispose of this!
  • Delete as unverifiable. WP:V requires multiple independent reliable sources to establish whether an article is verifiable, and the references for this article are all 1. by the same person, and 2. not reliable sources (Geocities?). Ziggurat 18:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Response. I'm a little perplexed by the assertion that "the references for this article are all 1. by the same person", particularly when the article cites at least three other sources outside the geocities site:
Comment, for those who don't read Dutch: this Krabbé article is very obviously not intended to be taken seriously. David Sneek 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Refutation, the Krabbe article correctly portrays typical SR Chess commentary, which as already noted is highly exaggerated and humorous in keeping with the spirit of the game. But this doesn't detract from the fact that the variant itself is real and playable. Conversely, it is an argument in favor of its notability, since it has received attention from independent chess analysts like Tim Krabbe. Gregorytopov 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
To say that his article, which consists entirely of claims no reader will believe, "doesn't detract from the fact that the variant itself is real", is hardly the same as suggesting that it can serve as a reference for an encyclopedia article. David Sneek 21:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
All three can be contacted for the purposes of external verification. Isn't this inconsistent with the suggestion that there is a single source, and that the article is "unverifiable"? Respectfully submitted, Gregorytopov 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)GregoryTopov
Excuse me, one of the sources is written by another person, possibly as a translation of the others. Unverifiability claim stands. Ziggurat 19:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable chess variant. No Guru 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Update The variant is real and played by many variant players. It's known in variant playing circles (either reviled or loved) and I'll vouch for it's existence since I'm currently one of the highest rated players [3] (scroll down to Stanley Random Chess). Clearly the article needs to remove any and all inaccurate historical content. It has as much right to exist here as Mornington Crescent (game) and should follow that pages example for how to present it's material. neoliminal 19:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
    • "as much right to exist" ... Mornington Crescent has reliable external sources about it (e.g. [4] ). Stanley Random Chess does not. Ziggurat 21:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though I am an expert at this game and have scored several wins against Mr. Topov himself, it is not played by enough people to be notable. David Sneek 20:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refutation. 1. Since this is a serious discussion about the inclusion of SR Chess, the record should state that I have never played Mr. Sneek. 2. Many chess variants with articles on Wikipedia are played by far less people than Stanley Random Chess, which has around 100 active games in progress on one chess server alone at present. Gregorytopov 20:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ten people playing each other on one server. Any evidence that it is played somewhere else? David Sneek 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Encise 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless my annual backyard water pistol competition is notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • and if I put up a $10,000 first prize for the world champion, would that make it notable? The game is a chess variant, like all the other chess variants listed. It's notability here is on the same level as Mao (game) or Nomic which arguably have less players currently playing them.neoliminal 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point. Stanley Random Chess is just as notable as most of the other chess variants already on Wikipedia, if not more so given its active player base. As a matter of consistency, if it is not sufficently notable, then many of the other chess variants should also be deleted, since several of them only reference a chessvariants.org page for verification, and are thus even less notable and less verifiable than SRC.
  • Keep. The first and primary reason for AfD was "hoax". This reason is objectively false. The game is real; it does exist. Enough evidence has been provided to prove that to someone willing to follow the source references.

Then the discussion turned to questions of notableness. It was compared(?) to a water gun fight in someone's backyard. I think the rhetorical comparison actually illustrates that the game is notable. Please follow my logic.

It's not exactly a water gun fight; but, could a tug-of-war contest ever make the Wikipedia? There is a famous tug-of war contest between two cities on the Mississippi River. While only the Iowa and Illinois city have direct interest in the contest, surely its relationship to the Mighty Mississip, to commercial river navigation (which is halted during the contest), and its uniqueness would give sufficient notoriety to the contest to justify a Wikipedia entry, n'est ce pas?

So, how do I justify that SR Chess is notable? SR Chess is discussed in at least two languages and on at least three referrenced independent websites (four with Wikipedia). Hundreds of games have been played -- by players around the world. This real and notable game has legitimate strategical value (for instance, the random elements are no obstacle to the good SRC player winning the majority of his or her games).

The problem is perhaps not irrelevance, but irritation. While the psuedo-serious approach to the game by its adherents (of which I am one) seems to bother some persons, their distress over behaviour is clearly no reason to eliminate the article itself. I do not know in what form the article first appeared; but, it looks objective and unoffensive at this point.

Stanley Random Chess is a legitimate part of the growing realm of chess variants. Please allow the article to remain in Wikipedia.

Archr Archr 17:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, less notable even than Chihuahua's annual backyard water pistol competition. Eusebeus 18:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refutation. A patently false assertion that cannot be substantiated, and an unfair contribution to this discussion. Unlike Stanley Random Chess, this backyard water pistol competition is not verifiable to have over 100 active games in progress, a current tournament, several external sources on multiple web-sites [5] [6], including one in another language[7], multiple participants who have testified here in support of its inclusion, and arguably less notable sister chess variants which have yet rightfully been gained existing entrance into Wikipedia. Gregorytopov 20:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refutation of Refutation. I've just taken the time to actually sign up to your site and take a look at these statistics you've mentioned - the "100 active games" you keep citing appear to be from a tournament of just ten people playing against each other in a round-robin fashion, which makes it quite a disingenuous statistic. I've had bigger water pistol fights than that. --McGeddon 20:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and wilfully unencyclopaedic - the Crescenters have at least conceded to giving a straightforward encyclopaedic explanation. SR Chess just appears to be a joke chess variant that can't be played outside of the author's website. --McGeddon 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Refutation. The article is intended to be straight-forward and factual, and not the perpetration of a hoax, and I welcome any suggestions for improving it to make it more encyclopaedic. It is as well-sourced and at least as notable as chess variants already on Wikipedia like Penultima, Multiple move chess, Monster chess, Madrasi chess, and Colour chess. I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, so please bear with me as I try to conform to the excellent standards of material here. Please feel free to give me guidance in making the article more encyclopaedic, and I will gladly revise it accordingly, since admitted weaknesses in presentation and style warrant revision and editing, not deletion. Gregorytopov 19:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right that there are some bad chess-variant pages around (Colour chess is insanely incoherent), and I'd support a delete on those as much as this. For your article to be cleaned up, the "Rules" section should either be clarified to "you toss a coin before each move to see whether to move randomly, and make stuff up to sound funny, and that's it" or at least explain that the software it runs on has hidden algorithms, if that's what this is about. It's very tough reading at the moment for anyone who's wondering what the game actually is, and "too complex to summarize" sets off all the usual hoax alarms. But eh, whatever you reword it to, I'm still not convinced that it's a sufficiently notable game. --McGeddon 20:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The game is notable because of the way it deals with the rules of chess. I agree that the current article needs heavy revision to fit Wikipedia standards, but as a chess variant the game is innovative. It's unfortunate that the game is linked so heavily to Mornington Crescent like history, but the gameplay is unique and deserving of a proper write up... with the fictional history left as a subsection rather than the focus. neoliminal 04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A real, legitimate chess variant; furthermore, it is reachable from among other pages Fizzbin, which article details a wholly fictitious game with no real-world rules or players. As such it not only exceeds whatever standard might be seen to apply to Fizzbin and Mornington_Crescent (game) but is demonstrably a part of the preexisting edifice of knowledge about abnormal or whimsical game variants.KASchmidt 20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Exceeds? Fizzbin is a Star Trek thing, so has a considerable audience and presumably gets played by Trek fans occasionally. Mornington Crescent has been part of a popular UK radio show for 34 years and is played constantly on a number of dedicated web sites. I haven't yet seen any evidence that Stanley Random Chess beats either of these, that it's anything more than a jokey game played by ten friends on one web server. --McGeddon 21:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I notice that you like Nomic. While played by very few people, this game is notable for it's rules!!! This is exactly why this entry needs to exist. The rules are what make SRC notable... which are unfortunately hidden in a Mao-esc secrecy.neoliminal 04:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is just as notable as most other chess variants which have Wikipedia articles.
  • Comment from nominator. The article has been cleaned up and the hoaxy-elements inserted by the brand-new editor (who has shown a good attitude and learned fast) have been removed, so I think that we can now discuss the artice based purely on its notability. While I'm not withdrawing the nomination (which I don't have the power to do even if I wanted to) I am personally changing my vote to Keep, see below. Herostratus 22:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's chess. Chess (IMO) has a special status in human intellectual endeavor, IMO it is a field coequal in important ways to (although very much smaller than) music composition, art, and so forth, and a proper encyclopedia should recognize this. So if 100 people are playing this, that IMO is much more notable than if 100 (or 10,000) people are playing some variant of Pokemon or Magic:The Gathering or whatever. It sounds like a valid and reasonably useful extension of chess. Per the arguments above that it's accepted as such, I say keep.

Herostratus 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. The author of this article invented the game and it is played only by him and nine others on one website. 194.178.109.250 10:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. While it's true that only one internet chess server currently can support online play of SR Chess (and for the record, it should be noted that schemingmind.com is in no way whatsoever my web-site, I am merely a registered member there along with many others), it should be mentioned that:
1. On more than one occasion Stanley Random Chess has been the subject of discussion in chess newsgroups and other websites (I even came across one instance where a user observed that he had checked Wikipedia trying to find accurate information about it); SR Chess was even referenced here in Wikipedia on the Chessmaster page prior to the creation of this article.
2. The number of people who play it is certainly not limited to 10 (although the question could be asked whether this would be true of some other chess variants with Wikipedia articles), in fact I'm not even participating in the present tournament involving 10 players. The game has enjoyed an active and growing player base ever since its creation, which suggests it is not a mere novelty destined to enjoy only 15 minutes of fame.
  • General comment. As an aside, and as a newcomer to Wikipedia, I'd like to express appreciation for the patience shown me in learning how Wikipedia works, and for Wikipedia itself. I'm very impressed with and appreciative of the rigorous process required for publication here. In my ignorance, I was mistakenly of the impression that any Tom Dick or Harry could post their wild theories here (not that I counted myself among them). I'm finding that the method of peer consensus to approve and moderate content is very effective - I know that my article has already benefited from that, and rightly forced me to reshape its original form. I have learned from my experience with this that I can trust Wikipedia content to be quite reliable! Although I recognize that the article on Stanley Random Chess probably needs some further work, I have already made significant changes to the way it was originally submitted, and I now realize that in its original form, it was quite unacceptable and would (correctly) have raised many flags of alert. It should be noted that several of those who expressed themselves in favor of its deletion, did so in response to the article in its original form, not its present revised state. I hope that in its present revised form, with some further improvement and editing, can eventually be regarded as appropriate, honest, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Gregorytopov 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The bottom line here is that it's not a hoax. That was what the AfD was called for and it's clearly not true. If you want to make some other point then we should start the voting over with that in mind. I hope the admins realize this and consider that some people have voted delete and then not come back to view further comments.66.65.152.2 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to the AfD process, so forgive me if this is explained somewhere obvious, but - is this how the process actually works? The AfD page just says that "Articles for Deletion (AfD) (formerly Votes for deletion) is where Wikipedians discuss whether articles should be deleted.", and I don't see how this rules out a discussion that moves away from the initial point. It looks like the system has been changed from "Votes for Deletion", so it's not about vote counting any more, it's about debate. So long as we don't delete this article purely for being a hoax, I don't see a problem. --McGeddon 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it's acceptable to delete an article for reasons other than the nominator's. It is desirable for people to reassess their opinion if new information develops, but we cannot assume that someone has simply not returned to view further comments (I, for example, have kept an eye on the page and am still not convinced, so my opinion stands). Ziggurat 02:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Ziggurat and McGeddon. The AfD and the votes still stand. As with Ziggurat I have also kept an eye on the debate after my initial vote. And I still say delete because even if not patent nonsense; I have yet to see any evidence of the encyclopedic nature of SRC as compared to the aforementioned backyard water pistol competition. Just being a chess variant is not sufficient. If it is being played by 10 people (or even 100 people) that too is not notable. The question is, is it a well-known and significant chess variant or not? IMO neither the above argument nor the sources demonstrate that it is. Marcus22 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I too am still following this discussion and I still see this as a non-notable chess variant. No Guru 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Despite it being an article I submitted that's up for debate, it seems to me entirely reasonable that even if the original ground for proposed deletion turns out to be spurious (as in this case, since SR Chess is not a hoax), if other grounds are raised that potentially warrant deletion, a discussion and debate on these new grounds is entirely legitimate. Even though I don't find these new grounds convincing yet, a debate about them is quite fair. Gregorytopov 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As an aside, why does the article refer to normal chess as "Simplified SR Chess"? Isopropyl 18:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See the paragraph "Parody and Humor", under "Historical Origin", where it states: "Players contribute to a growing tradition of humorous fiction about the game's origins, making exaggerated claims that modern chess (which SR Chess enthusiasts contemptuously refer to as "Common Chess" or "Simplified SR Chess") is merely a simplified form and development from SR Chess." Gregorytopov 19:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.