Talk:Atomic chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	Chess Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.

	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.	Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Strategy games To-do: edit  Create: Close Combat: The Russian Front • Close Combat: Battle of the Bulge • Close Combat: Invasion Normandy 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) • Battle Realms • Outlive • Stronghold (2001 game) • Fleet Command • Combat Mission (computer game series) • Diplomacy (game) Cite Sources: Colonization (computer game) • MacHack (chess) Update: List of strategy video games More...

I will defer to the opinion of the experienced player who loves the word "KILL" so much that he/she applies it oddly to a game involving inanimate objects (pieces). Carry on! --BadSanta

It seems more in the spirit of things. This isn't a cold, calculating strategy game. --Twinxor 20:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I take it pretty serously :D and you can use the word "kill". it's easier than "by primary or secondary capture". I'm self taught and it just came naturally into my vocab when I talk to myself throughout a game. Fegor 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another atomic chess?

It seems there is another game named "Atomic chess". I discovered it at IYT These are its complete rules. As far as I understand, in the beginning each players chooses its own atomic piece, which remains unknown to his opponent. After move 5 you can choose between doing a normal move or detonating the "atomic piece". The detonation eliminates every single piece in a square beside the one occupied by itself. --alfanje 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This game is called "Beirut chess" in Pritchard's encyclopedia. It was invented by Jim Winslow in 1991. There is a Java applet to try out the game. In this Java implementation you can't choose, which piece carries the bomb. Andreas Kaufmann 21:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The september re-write + the check rule

I re-wrote the whole thing. I added a chapter on tactics and theory and stuff. I wanted to go into detail but it would porbably need a new page like chess and chess openings does. The tactics part you can re do if you want I'm not all that happy with it. I'm rated 1850 at the moment so I don't know everything but I know enough to know the article before was rubish. Could do with an image or a link to an image showing the way capturing works.Fegor 06:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, its not quite correct about the check rule, I will invert it. As it was originally played with check enforced as far as I know. ICC basically is the variant, no idea why they don't have check enforced though. If you are unhappy with this, we can discuss it further.--Seberg 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I will do a picture late (or ask someone else to do). Deleted stub as well, don't think it is a stub after your last edits ;). About the check rule. Atomic chess was first featured on GICS with check, so unless you find something older, ICC atomic is a variant of this one IMO, however maybe we could mention this earlier and more explicitly.--Seberg 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

as far as I'm concerned I would not want to play any check rule rated but that's a preference. even the most militant check rule types (the most wrong :P ) have to admit it is played with varying importance across the internet and someone who knows more about how each server enforces it should probably make a whole chapter of the article about it. I was wrong to put "there is no check rule in atomic chess" just as you are wrong to say there is check rule. Tomorrow I will add a link to the section of Tipau's website which talks about this and remove your assertion as a fact that there is a check rule. http://vagonchik.info/sigge/tipau/rules.html. if we can't agree then I'll ask moltenthinker, Peter-patzer or Tipau to come here and tell us whatfor. what's your rating Seberg? also I'll do some more cleaning.Fegor 23:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My rating doesn't matter much anyways, I didn't really change much about the game anyways. But I do know atomic scene very well. Anyways, check rule is historically the correct one, also look at chessvariants, etc. Though I agree that because of the fact that non-check rule was implemented quite a bit later on (well mostly icc) it should be mentioned as well. Fact is, first GICS implemented it with check rule, other servers followed, FICS, MEWIS and probably more with check rule. Only ICC seems to have invented the no check rule later for reasons unknown to me. So I do think that the no-check atomic chess is a variant of this, though I suppose it is big enough to be mentioned equally.--Seberg 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)