Talk:Chinese checkers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knight chess piece 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.
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:
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

Contents

[edit] Translation Inconsistencies

There are serious inconsistencies with the Chinese version of this page. For instance, the image on the Chinese page (and the version I play with my in-laws) shows the pieces are 5-deep (15 pieces per player), versus the images on the English page show the pieces are 4-deep (10 pieces per player). This also implies a maximum of 3 players for the version on the Chinese page (since the corners of the "home" areas overlap when 5-deep).

Also, the Chinese translation indicates (assuming my reading is correct) that Stern-Halma moved from Germany to the US, whereas the English page says the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejtttje (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stern-Halma

Probably Stern-Halma deserves an article on its own. Apparently, the Chinese version has developed into many variations in the rules. It would be nice to have the desciption of the game with its original rules.

What is the history of Stern-Halma? When did it spread to China? Wouldn't it be a little sensitive that a star of David is used in a German game? Is the game still played in Germany?

A star made out of two triangles is quite a simple geometrical form, not an exclusive invention of any people. Besides, if it was privative of the Jews, wouldn't it be a little sensitive to use it in anyplace where Jews have suffered persecution and prejudice (id est, Europe, North Africa, Western Asia, United States or Argentina)?--Erri4a 01:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Curiously German Wikipedia's article de:Halma is about SternHalma--Erri4a 01:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Halma and Checkers are not one and the same, so it was confusing to have Halma link to the checkers article, so I'm going to unwiki it for now. -- Alex Stevens

is there a mathematical analysis of this game? (i've never seen it)

also, does any one know any computer programs that plays it? i know one on the mac but it's badly written.

Xah P0lyglut 08:05, 2003 Nov 29 (UTC)

games.yahoo.com let you play it with someone on the Internet. I believe it uses the boring one space at a time rule. Kowloonese 23:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Capture

In the "fast-paced" version described at the end of the article, is it legal to capture your own pieces? --Juuitchan

I understand you don't have your own pieces. Colour is irrelevant. You just pick any piece, the one you think you're going to capture more with, go and capture all you can. Ain't it?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. exactly. Kowloonese 22:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Two player game

[edit] Two player game initial layout

"In a two player game, each player can play one, two or three sets of marbles. [...] If three sets are played, the pieces usually go to the opponent's corner."
Now this can be done in two ways:

  • each player starts at the three adjacent triangles of one side of the star (aaabbb)
  • each player starts at three separated triangles, while the adjacent points are occupied by his opponent (ababab)

Which layout is/are used?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I always used aaabbb arrangement because of the sitting position so that all the pieces go across the table to the other side. However, I don't see why the other variation can be played too. The two players can always agree on one way or the other. In fact, it can be a challenge to change the choice once in a while because playing strategies need to adjust according to the proximity of your own pieces. Kowloonese 22:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I understand all possibilities are valid as long as participants agree, but we should state clear how people are actually playing. Now, another question. When playing two players A and B with two colours each, leaving two star corners blank... how do they start?

blank A A blank B B (same players' sets together, separated from the adversary's)
blank A B blank A B (each of yor sets is between your opponent's and a blank triangle)

I'd like to know which variants choose other users. Besides, it also would be very helpful if any who understand Spanish and knows this game could review the Spanish version.--Erri4a 01:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Turns for several colours

Besides, when a player uses two of three different sets... I understand the turns correspond to the set, not the player. For instance, if playa A uses reds and whites, and playa B uses greens and blues:

A moves reds,
B moves greens,
would A be allowed to move reds again or must he move whites first? --Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another good question. I always played 1-2-3-1-2-3. However, you can change the rule as long as both players agree. Your alternative allows for a more flexible game, and it will accelerate the game because the best moves will be picked first regardless of which color. Along the same thought, your suggestion can be modified further to let the player mix all his pieces. i.e. instead of moving 3 sets of 10 pieces across, you can play a game of playing 30 pieces across. i.e. any of your own pieces can enter any of the three corners. In this case, the players pretend they are semi-color-blind. The colors are divided into just "yours" and "mine". Kowloonese 22:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hop across

Usually, in the fast paced version, a marble is allowed to enter into an empty corner in the middle of a series of hops, but must hop out again before the move is over.
I understand there are two variants:

one in which players are not allowed to finish their turn leaving a marble in the extreme point of a star,
one in which anyone can finish their turn wherever.

Is this right?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We always played the no-stopping rule. Because the corners are often other players' destination, it is unfair to leave a piece in there to block their entry. So the pieces are only allowed in your own starting, ending corner and the common playing field in the middle. Transit into other corners are important to the game because it enables a lot of long distance catapulting which is the main factor that makes the fast paced version so much fun. On the other hand, if both players agree, you can always change the rule. However, the game may not be as fun. Kowloonese 23:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Turtle players

which is the best way / rule variant to avoid turtling? (i.e. leaving one or more pieces on source triangle in order to deny opponent winning)

If a person keeps a piece inside their own territory from the beginning, then by the end no one will win. but to eliminate this from happening, as it would lead to no "winner," you can just change the winning conditions to be whoever has the most stones in the opposite corner, after a "draw" from turtling. 70.111.251.203 14:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Or you could decalre that after everyone's first move the first player to fill theri destination point with pieces [i]from any player[/i] is declared the winner.

[edit] Additions needed

  1. There needs to be a it about the game complexity,
  2. as well if the setup for 2 players can have the other stones in their corners while the players each only use one corner (opposite each other of course). This wouldn't allow the players to go into the corners that are not their own or their opponents.
  3. Also, there should be a tag/infobox for the wikibook on chinese checker strategy not a link. 70.111.251.203 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name in Chinese not at the front

I took the attitude that this isn't really a Chinese game but an international game known in China. Putting the Chinese name for it at the front of the article suggests that the game originated in China, or is more a Chinese game than a Western one. If this rearrangement conveys the wrong sense, others may change it. Mark Foskey 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)