Talk:Gothic chess/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

I like the additions

I just want to drop another note saying that I like the additions just made to this article. I am enjoying the annotations made in the Trice - Polgar game. Just to clarify 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Alacrity .. etc

This part of the article needs a serious re-write. It's obviously written by Ed Trice himself (this is his style) or it is copied directly from his website. Most importantly, it's full of unnecessary adjectives. Also, a final diagram would be nice. I might make those changes later, but don't rely on it. --Sibahi 08:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


Just to be clear I am not Ed Trice but I work for the Gothic Chess Federation. I publish the Gothic Chess Review newsletter and I think the use of adjectives is a nice change from the often flat, overly tactical annotation style that predominates most of chess literature.
The bold text changes were very much appreciated, thank you. I was going to do that myself and you saved me a great deal of time with that.

GothicEnthusiast 00:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, that the 'flat', style is the closest thing to be accepted in Wikipedia. This is, after all, an encyclopedia and the topics should be written in a strictly scientific way (which is, in chess games in general, the style you call 'flat'), not like an advertisement. I really hope that you edit the article to meet with Wikipedia's standards, since you look like the most person here familiar with Gothic Chess. As for your identity, well, I was close enough. --Sibahi 10:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

--- Hey I added game 6.7 Andreas Kaufmann vs. Ed Trice, May 16, 2005, we need more games showing Trice losing :) man of mystery 11:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC) ---

^^^^ Is there some reason you seem to have a dislike for Mr. Trice, man of mystery? GothicEnthusiast 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the need for a rewrite. The section

"In the contemporary game of chess, the experienced Grandmaster typically strives to create a weakness, win a pawn, then coddle this minute advantage through until the end of the game. With so much having been published about chess, elite players reaching the pinnacle often cannot risk losing and must play with a great deal of constraint. In Gothic Chess, the creative attacking player occasionally outperforms a much higher rated chess player. This is primarily due to the artistic-like quality of the combinations that present themselves, often hidden beneath the surface of what appears to be otherwise tranquil positions."

Editorializes (see the section on words to avoid) and has a tone and style that does not fit Wikipedia, even if "the use of adjectives is a nice change." 66.168.235.218 02:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mention earlier, but the same style (undesired adjectives, etc.) can be seen to a lesser extent throughout the rest of the article. So, a rewrite, of particular phrases and words at least, would probably be beneficial for the rest of the article as well. 66.168.235.218 02:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes Look Good Sibahi!

I like the new hierarchy you have in place there Sibahi, excellent, excellent! At first I thought you removed all of those endgames, but now I see you just made them their own page. Great Idea! Do you think we should add a link from the Endgame Page back to the main Gothic Chess page? Let me know what you think.

I also tried to add this picture to the Trice-Polgar section, before that loser (who shall remain nameless) tries to tell us that Ed never played Susan. Do you think we should add this picture somewhere? If you look close enough, you can see it exactly matches the position after the move 7. Cd3 was played, especially if you click on the thumbnail and get the full-sized image.

Ed Trice playing Grandmaster Susan Polgar. Black to move after 7. Cd3.
Ed Trice playing Grandmaster Susan Polgar. Black to move after 7. Cd3.

Also, is there a way to have text appear UNDERNEATH an image? It seems that text is defaulted to flow around a picture, and sometimes I'd just like to see the image centered on a page with no text on either the right or the left. I can't seem to find any examples showcasing this.

GothicEnthusiast 12:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


I minimized the picture a little, so the picture will look better. Though I don't think it's necessary, it would be a neat addition to the page. Remove two or three diagrams from the game, and have the picture on the right side of the page (would look nice. ) Personally, except for the diagram in the beginning of the page, I would rather have all diagrams and photos on the right side of the page, so they wouldn't interrupt the reading of the article. (Have a look here: FIDE World Chess Championship 2006 for an example.) Also, I don't think there's a way to centralize images.
Two more things: There is a link from the Endgames page to the original page, in the first paragraph, and I think that there are enough example games (there is, in fact, more than enough, since most of them can be seen on the Gothic Chess website. Only the most two or three remarkable games, the Trice-Polgar included, should remain, with diagrams if necessary.) --Sibahi 13:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

---

I took care of adding the picture for Ed only because I think his beard makes him look disgusting man of mystery 14:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

---


^^^ Is that comment really necessary? GothicEnthusiast 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Further Expansion Topics

I'd like to propose some changes that are both expansions of this article and adjustments to prior sections.

1. Endgames Section

It seems it would be a good idea to show some of the endgames using the diagram editor, with their solutions tabulated below, rather then have such a sparse section as it is now, with links to the GothicChess.com page.

2. Strategy Section

I think the "Alacrity of Attack" section (Ed's idea) needs a few pillars of support in the form of some topics that are easier to digest first. For example, we have no discussion of general strategy at all, then all of sudden we jump to a complex game featuring the game's inventor and one of the strongest women chessplayers in history. I think we need to have at least 2 topics showing some general ideas before that "Alacrity" section is shown.

3. Openings section

There are so many good openings in Gothic Chess and we have only one shown. This could use a great deal of development.

4. Tactics section

Another area that could be inserted well in advance of the "Alacrity" section.

What do you think?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sibahi (talk • contribs)


This was NOT me. I always sign my comments. --Sibahi 08:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Addhoc 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Chess Programs

Should we create a separate page for programs that play the game of Gothic Chess? In 2004 there were 8 programs that were in the Gothic Chess Computer World Championship perhaps there are even more now? Here is the source page: http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/ComputerWorldChampionships.htm

Would any of the programmers care to comment?

GothicEnthusiast 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a programmer but I think a page for the Gothic Vortex program would be fine and welcome at Wikipedia. After all, there are pages for SMIRF and ChessV. That is not the same thing you are proposing but it is a good start toward your desired end.
I have a request. A devoted fan [no doubt] of Gothic Chess recently posted a boast about Gothic Vortex being stronger than SMIRF and ChessV on the Optimized Chess page. I removed this remark as irrelevant because Gothic Vortex cannot play Opti Chess and so, its superiority at this game is unproven to date. [Opti Chess uses "symmetric castling" which GV does not currently support.] However, I am intrigued by the possibility that this could be true. If Gothic Vortex were slightly modified to support "symmetric castling", then I might be able to verify its allegedly superior strength at Opti Chess. --InfoCheck

Regarding "Allegedly Kasaparov" edit

I would like everyone to take a peek at the [Gothic Chess Blog] over the next couple of days. Ed Trice is explaining the entire history of the Karpov vs. Fischer Gothic Chess match, from its germination, until its ultimate expiration. During that process he had initiated contact with Garry Kasparov's agent, Owen Williams. This first part of this dialog is already in the blog. The upcoming entries will recount how they contacted Ed again, when the GothicChessLive.com site was up in Beta Release, Kasparov requested an account there, and this was established for him. Only Owen Williams was given the password to the account. I would like to hear from that "socket puppet" account, who else on this planet would have the talent to sacrifice a Queen, then an Archbishop, to create a checkmate from move 31 of this [this game] ? The diagram is shown here also.

I'd like an answer, because Ed Trice says there is no way he could see the complete checkmate solution from the parent position.


Image:chess_zh10_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zh10_26.png
White to move and play 31. Bxg6! with the Queen hanging, and then the Archbishop is sacrificed three moves later. 31...gxf4 32.Bxh7+ Kh8 33.Cg5 Rg8 34.Af7+ Nxf7 35.Cxf7#


Googling for BlueHorseShoe doesn't show any results about Kaspy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BlueHorseshoe&btnG=Google+Search --212.107.116.246 18:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


1. You need to be more intelligent with your Google use. For example, Blue Horseshoe was the "code name" used by Michael Douglas' character, Gordon Geko, a Wall Steet Tycoon. When he called in a massive stock trade as "Blue Horseshoe" it was almost always the precursor to a hostile takeover or some other trade that would make millionaires out of dabblers who followed his lead. 2. Having said that, not finding a google link between Blue Horseshoe and Garry Kasparov doesn't mean anything. What is Kasparov's name on ICC for example? Can you find that with Google? Not likely. World Class Grandmasters have anonymity on gaming sites, if they choose to remain anonymous. 3. Trice was an admin at the site and gave the password to the "Blue Horseshoe" account only to Kasparov's manager. Who else could have signed on and destroyed people using BlueHorseShoe?

GothicEnthusiast 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


Yes I can confirm that BlueHorseShoe was Garry Kasparov. I have talked to Owen Williams on the phone and I gave him the login name and password personally.

GothicChessInventor 23:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Number of example games

Do we really need to have eleven (11) example games? That seems excess to me. The Trice—Polgar game is good to have as it is annotated, but I'd boldly remove most of the other games, namely at least the ones (six of them) that do not have any external reference. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 20:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you actually play through the games you see it is an excellent cross-sample of possible Gothic Chess openings. No two games have the first two moves! Plus, they demonstrate how the game play has evolved over time, from the year 2000 when the concepts were not as well known, to the more modern examples, which contain many subtleties. A total of 11 games out of thousands played is not that excessive. If you are looking for an external link, maybe the admin of the Gothic Chess website can add them here: http://www.gothicchess.com/javascript_games.html
GothicEnthusiast 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Those points are very hard to notice as there are no comments. There are also no indications of notability. Why these games? Who has selected them? If the point is to demonstrate various openings then perhaps you need to rename the example section, cut all but the opening moves and then annotate them.
Besides, that's not the way to go: Wikipedia should only include material that can be referenced elsewhere. You cannot submit something to Wikipedia, copy it elsewhere and reference it there. That's like a circular argument.
Also, how many example games does the chess article have? Zero! The example game we had was transwikied to Wikibooks. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Well there are many different Gothic Chess games available for replay. For example, here: http://www.gothicchess.com/bk_archive.html

But there are few games that were published from the "early days" when Gothic Chess was first being played (2000-2001) so any game from this time period is historically important. Some games were from some of the first tournaments ever played, in Philadelphia, such as shown here: http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/elliot_dave.gif

In my opinion, excluding an early Gothic Chess game would be like not showing a game from the 1851 International Tournament in London.

The chess article might not have sample games because what could be a representative sample? Everyone would argue over what games to include! If you do not think the sample games sections belongs there, what should be there in its place? GothicEnthusiast 02:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The example games section should of course be replaced with prose! A verbal description of what the sample games are trying to demonstrate. Something like this: "Evolution of the playing style The playing style of Gothic Chess has evolved a lot. In the first ever tournament in Philadelphia the Mad Horse opening, 1.xx xx 2.xx xx 3.xx xx, was very popular[source]. However, for the next tournament NN had invented a killer reply 4.xx![source] forcing the players to change their playing style. ....." If there is no literature or other sources then you might consider doing a study yourself, publishing it somewhere and then using it as a source. You could do a statistical analysis of the games available and/or interview some of the top players or the inventor; I don't know how connected you are in the scene. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 06:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Gentlemen, I also agree that the sample game section needs some revision. I do like some of the games shown. Maybe what I will do is add them to the Javascript Games section here, or maybe we can just pick one animated game from here to showcase. I like this one:
http://www.gothicchess.com/images/0000014.gif
Let me know what you think.
With my regards, GothicChessInventor 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, none of the games in the Example Games section should be there; it's not encyclopaedic content (especially not the section intro), it's not informative (they serve no purpose to the casual reader), they break up the flow of the article, and there is no precedent for this kind of content. A link to an external site would be much more appropriate. Unless anyone can come up with a good reason why they should be maintained, I will remove this section in the next day or so. Oli Filth 18:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the annotated game is completely unencyclopedic as well, at the moment. Phrases such as:
  • "This is primarily due to the artistic-like quality of the combinations that present themselves, often hidden beneath the surface of what appears to be otherwise tranquil positions."
  • "There are both "lightning bolt" counterattacks, where stunning checkmates materialize out of nowhere, and there are subtle, repulsing attacks, where an accumulation of tempi gradually overpower the formerly-attacking player"
  • "picking off pawns with sniper-like precision"
etc. is all POV and original synthesis. Unless someone dramatically tidies this up, I'll be removing this section as well. Oli Filth 18:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Some editors seem to think that this material is in fact encyclopedic. I would argue that it fails the requirements of:
This is why I have added the {{unencyclopedic}} tag to these sections. Before removing this tag, please could you justify how the section adheres to the above Wikipedia policies? Oli Filth 21:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


You're confusing me. You say "Some editors seem to think that this material is in fact encyclopedic". This is my point exactly. If you say it IS encyclopedic, I remove the tag.

GothicEnthusiast 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I regret delving into ad hominem attacks, but, are you incapable of comprehension of written English? What I clearly meant was "some editors think it's unencyclopedic, I disagree, my arguments are thus...". This is the third or fourth time you've apparently misunderstood or misread something this evening.
You have failed to address any of the concerns above, yet you have still removed the tag. If it helps, I will put a more specific tag on the section instead. Oli Filth 21:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Andreas' Adding of Gothic Chess Board Image

Hello everyone. I am happy to see all of the activity and the recent changes to this wikipedia entry! It looks completely different from the last time I saw it! Thanks to everyone doing a great job. I would like to pose one question to my friend Andreas. The most recent Gothic Chess board image, which was taken when we were in Iceland, is actually Frank Camaratta's board that he made especially for Bobby Fischer. Frank has made a new Chancellor piece, and he is sending me this for review. If we both like it, House of Staunton will be selling this new board on their website.

My suggestion is, for the time being, let's revert to the version prior to the adding of the image Andreas supplied. When I have a new photo of the entire board, I will release it free for the public domain here. But, let's take this matter to a vote.

I vote to temporarily remove the image and wait for the new one to arrive.

With my regards, GothicChessInventor 22:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if this is not a "standard" gothic chess set, let's remove it. It is nice that you plan to add a photo of real gothic chess set. This will be a great addition to the article. Andreas Kaufmann 22:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The 'official' set for Gothic Chess is, I think, the plastic board. The Archbishop and the Chancellor shown in www.gothicchess.com are ideal to be in this article (and, in my opinion, a better replacement than the Home-Made pieces in Capablanca Chess.) THAT image should be put here, but since you're its creator, you should be the one to post it here, Mr Trice. --Sibahi 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
To my friend Andreas: Thanks for making that adjustment. Also, just so you know, I have saved thousands of the Gothic Chess games from BrainKing. I am in the process of converting the PGN games to Javascript viewing. I also re-rated the entire population of players. Somehow the old ratings on that site seemed off. I think I was 160-0 or something like that and still rated #2. And, I beat the #1 person twice, who had a record of 25-5, so that did not make much sense to me. Anyway here is a link to where ALL of the games will be eventually:
http://www.gothicchess.com/bk_archive.html
To Sibahi: Which graphic are you referring to? This one: http://www.gothicchess.com/images/sale.jpg or this one? http://www.gothicchess.com/images/the_set_small.jpg
In either case, I think I can come up with some better images. But please let me know.
With my regards, GothicChessInventor 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The first. Either this or a line-up of the pieces, like the sort of images shown in sites that sell Chess sets. Just for the record, I like the Staunton design of the chancellor better; (close-ups of those would be nice as well.) --Sibahi 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To Sibahi:

Here are some more candidate images:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/championship_room.gif http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/the_set.jpg

My favorite is this one:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/gothic_board.gif

So let me know if any of these seem better.

With my regards, GothicChessInventor 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I still like the image in the sales advertisement best. --Sibahi 08:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article reads like a personal crusade to get this variant known. Of course the inventor thinks it's better than Capablanca Chess. He'd be foolish if he didn't. Then to have nigh-on a dozen example games seems excessive. Especially when one would suffice to give a feel of the games style differential to the "main" game and a link for further reading if anyone was interested. Not exactly an encyclopedic entry.81.155.185.100 20:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article seems to break the neutral point of view. A particular highlight is this: Thousands of Gothic Chess games have been played face to face, via email, via our discussion board, and on three different game servers thus far. (emphasis mine). That seems like an obvious edit from an owner of a Gothic Chess site. Also, in the summary, The are three ways that you can play Gothic Chess: with a [1] set (boards and pieces), against a free [2] program, and over the [3] internet against other players. - two of the links are to gothicchess.com and the third is to gothicchesslive.com, a likely affiliate. The link to the "free program" is a screenshot - the program seems to cost $250 for the latest version, and the 30-day free trial links to a parked domain. It just seems like pushing their own program. LiquidFire 09:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me the "thousands of games" comment is just a fact. For example this link shows 2241 games as of April 4, 2007 so clearly the "thousands" comment is correct. The remark is needed because if you look at the Chess_variant page, there are many variants listed, and even hundreds listed from the chessvariants.org site, but it looks like nobody has a site dedicated to just their own game. Likewise, try and buy a set of pieces for variants such as Dragon_chess , or some of the others listed there. The games were not popular enough to warrant commercialization. And, the program is free. Just type [Gothic Vortex] into the google search engine, and look at the hits you get for sites hosting free downloads. It is also available for free from the [Download] link at the top of every GothicChess.com web page.

GothicEnthusiast 10:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"This variant is considered an improvement over Capablanca Chess by its inventor."

This violates one of the Pillars of Wikipedia, see [NPOV] for more details.

Opinions of superiority, even those held by the discoverer, do not belong on Wikipedia. Somehow, ChessHistorian missed this game while making his rounds of Capablanca chess variants and putting a stop to NPOV violations. Nonethless, it must be changed in a timely manner. I will leave it to other experts on this game to determine exactly how to word the revision but please take care of this or someone else will. --AceVentura


FYI, AceVentura, you are the one who wrote that line in the original article. You are correcting your own entry. Go back and look at the history. And why are you referring to another page's remarks to "strike back" at this one? You are unhappy with someone's edits on that page so you vandalize this one?

GothicEnthusiast 19:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't add this line. See diff. Oli Filth 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Go back further into time and see who first put the remark in there. It seems like AceVentura thinks ChessHistorian did it the way he is issuing blame. Also, notice all that AceVentura is issuing some form of "retaliation" from someone else posting on some other insignificant stub of a page. Do we really need him here?

GothicEnthusiast 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase in its current form was first added by User:Samboy in the diff I linked to above. The phrase (in any form) was first added by User:Andreas Kaufmann [diff]. Neither of these editors appear to be User:AceVentura.
And I'm not sure how you interpreted AceVentura's comments as suggesting that ChessHistorian added it. Oli Filth 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It's easy if you read his remarks. ChessHistorian supposedly made an edit to a page called "Casabanca Chess" or something like that, then AceVenture came here and started edit wars today.GothicEnthusiast 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
AceVentura has made one edit today. Oli Filth 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone keeps inserting a link about the "SymmetricalCollection" to the bottom of the page. This is a group of useless chess variants that nobody plays. I would like them permanently removed from this page, ad infinitum.

GothicEnthusiast 21:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Neutrality?

This article reads like a personal crusade to get this variant known.

Get it known? It's been around for 7 years. There's Gothic Chess pages in Russian, Portuguese, and German as well. This is a variant that actually sells boards, that actually has dedicated software programs to play the game, and there are Computer World Championships with people from mutliple countries like the event shown here http://www.chessville.com/GothicChess/ComputerWorldChampionships.htm If people in so many countries are aware of it, how can you call this a "crusade to get it known?" It's already well known.

The Trice-Polgar Annotated Game Needs To Stay

Currently I am involved in an edit war with someone who DOES NOT play Gothic Chess and DOES NOT understand the game. The game that is annotated between Ed Trice and one of the World's strongest Grandmasters, Susan Polgar, BELONGS on this page. Someone keeps tagging it as "unworthy" of Wikipedia. This game is the quintessential example of HOW TO PLAY GOTHIC CHESS and it belongs here. I would like people to weigh in on this matter. GothicEnthusiast 21:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Oli Filth 21:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
And one annotated game with the World's Strongest Woman Grandmaster does not a manual, guidebook, or textbook make. Your claims are pointless. The Chess section has 31 items in the "contents" list. This game is more complex than chess. Why don't you go whittle down the chess page with its 31 sections then, isn't that making it a "manual" or "guidebook" or "textbook"? And, if not, why can't one annotated game remain?

GothicEnthusiast 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

First, please see item #4 of Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. As for, "This game is the quintessential example of HOW TO PLAY GOTHIC CHESS", see item #1. Oli Filth 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You are making my point. ONE GAME becomes a SUBSTITUTION for a lot of talk. One game AVOIDS having to write a book. And, you haven't answered my question. Why are you not trying to decrease the context of the Chess page which is composed of 31 sections?
GothicEnthusiast 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
A "lot of talk" does not need to be here, so there is no need to substitute anything in its place.
The Chess article is in some ways irrelevant, as it can be dealt with independently if there is a problem with it. However, on a cursory glance, there is nothing in that article that seems to constitute a how-to guide (or similar). The fact that it has 31 sections is neither here nor there. Oli Filth 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On another point, the argument that Gothic chess is "a game more complex than chess" and therefore needs an annotated example is false. Chess is more complex than draughts (checkers); that doesn't mean that the chess article needs an annotated example. Checkers is more complex than tic-tac-toe; that doesn't mean that the checkers example article needs an annotated example. Oli Filth 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

On yet another point, the chess article does not have a sample game yet it's a featured article. So clearly a sample game is not needed. I believe the article had a sample game but it became its own article when the article grew too large. It was then found unencyclopedic and transwiki'ed to Wikibooks: Wikibooks:Chess/Sample chess game. &;mdash;ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As per your request above, GothicEnthusiast, I figured I'd offer my thoughts about the argument. I agree with Oli Filth, the game provided is how-to play Gothic chess, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Additionally, even left in as an example of the game, it is far too long. It makes up nearly half the article discussing the details of a single game. In response to something else you mentioned, it is not necessary to play Gothic chess to be able to edit or analyze the article about it. In summary, I think the "Trice-Polgar Annotated Game Needs To Be Removed" not stay. 66.168.235.218 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Gothic Enthusiast, (ahem, John!) while I do appreciate your support, please abide by the proper channels of communication. Don't take every question raised as a personal afront. Many of your "victims" on the Gothic Chess site said the same thing about you, you are harsh in your treatment of those you vanquish. It's just an article, nothing earth shattering about it. Frankly I am amazed so many people have this much time to dedicate to it. If they say the article needs backup, help them locate the backup. If they say the article has a non-neutral perspective, ask them to ouline which subsections are in violation. As I understand it, before they can claim it is not compliant with Neutral_point_of_view, it must be cited as either:

Class
bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions;
Commercial
advertising, coverage of political campaigns favoring corporate interests, or reporting favoring media owner interests;
Ethnic or racial
racism, nationalism, regionalism and tribalism;
Geographical
describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country, when the dispute is framed differently elsewhere;
Nationalistic
favoring the interests or views of a particular nation;
Gender
including sexism and heteronormativity;
Political
bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate;
Religious
bias for or against religion, faith or beliefs;
Sensationalist
ravoring the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes emphasizing, distorting, or fabricating exceptional news to boost commercial ratings;
Scientific
favoring (or disfavoring) a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason.

I don't see any such contrasts with the aforementioned, perhaps the one who tagged the article can expound on this for me.

With my reards, GothicChessInventor 17:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
The list above (from WP:NPOV) is a list of examples of common bias. Essentially, the most general definition of "bias" as far as the policy is concerned is the expression of opinions about the material at hand. I quote: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.".
The example game section currently has language such as "Trice's 8. Cd8 is very energetic but a bit overly optimistic." and "White's position had been in shambles for some time."; these are opinions.
To be honest, non-neutral point of view is probably the least of the problems with this section. The main problems are that it is a "how-to" guide, seems to be original synthesis/research, and is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. I will replace the current tags with more specific ones. Oli Filth 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this 'Example game' is a valuable part of the article. We have example games in several articles on chess variants, see e.g. Alice chess or Bughouse chess. There is also a bunch of commented chess games in Wikipedia, please see chess games category. Pritchard's encylopedia on chess variants contains sample games for many chess variants, some important variants have several games. These example games are needed to better explain rules, as well as give feel for game strategy and tactics. Andreas Kaufmann 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the games in the chess-games category should probably stay (because it's the games themseleves that are notable), the sample games demonstrating how to play the various chess variants should go, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. This content should be moved to Wikibooks. Oli Filth 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've now removed the section in question, primarily due to violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT#HOWTO. If someone wants this content to remain in existence, my strong recommendation would be to move it to Wikibooks, just as the example chess game was; see here for guidance on how to do this. For this section to be readded to this page, an assertion must be made as to how it does not fall under WP:NOT#HOWTO, at the very least. Oli Filth 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


If you remove the sample game, citing it as a "HowTo", then I want you to go to the Rybka page, and do the same thing. I'd love to watch you get run out of there on a rail, with tar and feathers. ChessHistorian 04:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Any and all issues concerning the Rybka page should be raised at Talk:Rybka, not here... —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Stating that the Trice-Polgar game is a violation of the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT#HOWTO is like saying looking at the Mona_Lisa will teach you how to paint.

1. You can't learn HOW TO play Gothic Chess by going over the Trice-Polgar game, so for that reason alone, your WP:NOT#HOWTO label should be removed.

2. If you do not like the comments "Trice's 8. Cd8 is very energetic but a bit overly optimistic." and "White's position had been in shambles for some time." why don't you propose substitue remarks? You keep citing miniscule reasons to cut out an entire section of an article rather than propose corrections in place to retain the substance.

3. I agree with the people who state that Oli Filth appears to have some bias against Gothic Chess. I support the request to have him removed. He is just not a good editor. He would make an excellent lumberjack though, as all he does it chop things.

GothicChessInventor 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your point #2, I've now deleted some material, although I think the problems still persist. The problem is that someone has tried to write the section as if it was a thriller novel rather than an encyclopedia article. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your point #3, you clearly did not read the comment that ended the mediation request a while ago. Here's a link: User:GothicEnthusiast/2007-08-03_Gothic_chess#Outside_View_by_Boricuaeddie. The point is that no single person or group of people can be "blocked" from editing a specific article. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
To answer your points (starting with the Rybka article):
  • I don't believe the Rybka#Sample Game is in any way a "how-to"; however I believe it's not relevant to that article for other reasons. I've posted a comment on the relevant talk page; please comment there if you have any thoughts.
  • Your Mona Lisa analogy is a bad one. The Mona Lisa is clearly the subject of the Mona Lisa article, so a picture would be appropriate. This particular game is not the subject of the Gothic chess article. Your analogy would be more appropriate if there were a separate Trice-Polgar match article.
  • Above, User:GothicEnthusiast belives that "This game is the quintessential example of HOW TO PLAY GOTHIC CHESS" (his empahsis, not mine), so it appears I'm not the only one who believes that the aim of this section is to illustrate how the game is played.
  • The examples I gave were prime examples; but the whole articlesection is written in a similar tone, so it's not a "miniscule" problem. Often, I do attempt a rewrite of badly-written sections or articles. However, even if written in an "encyclopaedic tone", I don't believe the example-game section warrants inclusion in the article, so I don't feel that I should waste my time doing a conversion!
Oli Filth 17:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think that is a very good idea: If the Trice-Polgar match is so essential, why not create a seperate article for it and link it from the Gothic Chess article? My first suggestion would have been to link to an external page (which could have as many step-by-step games as needed), but this seems like a good compromise.--Mirage GSM 07:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Request for Citations

Greetings to all,

There are some requests for citations I see in the article now. Here is some info for a few of them.

Counting the number of positions possible from a certain position is referred to as a Perft computation. This is not a typo :) I pronounce it like "purf-tea" and so do other programmers I communicate with on the subject. A google link:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=perft+chess&btnG=Google+Search

A link listing the numbers that were cited in the article:

http://www.albert.nu/programs/sharper/perft.htm

By the way, if you googled the exact number, you could bring up such pages immediately.

If you go to Susan Polgar's blog from October 14, 2006, you will see the Polgar-Trice game is not "original research":

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13118012&postID=116085080282154094

I don't know how to link directly to several links on her page showing her in Philadelphia for a 65 board simul she conducted. That is when I met her, took her and Paul Truong out to dinner, and played a game of Gothic Chess with her afterwards. If you access the above link and then navigate around on her blog, you'll see her in Philadelphia.

I'll try to dig up some more later. I'm very busy today. Perhaps some of the actual authors can provide the data you seek.

With my regards,

GothicChessInventor 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,
Thanks for the links. I'm sure one of the links that Google brings up will be suitable for a reference for the number of positions. All we need is evidence that someone didn't just arbitrarily pluck those numbers from thin air.
Regarding the Polgar-Trice game, I didn't tag it as "original research" because I didn't think the game existed, but because the analysis of it is original research. It is simply the author's interpretation of the game.
Oli Filth 18:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Greetings Oli,

The game Trice-Polgar was published in the Winter 2006 issue of Gothic Chess Review, the magazine that gets printed and sent to all of the members. If you look at this image, for example: http://www.gothicchess.com/images/chancellor_vortex_bigger.gif

The cover of every issue features artwork done by our cartoonist. I can probably get a copy of the article from our library, just so you know, every member of the Gothic Chess Federation has already seen this game.

With my regards,

GothicChessInventor 19:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not disputing that the game exists. Its existence is not the concern. Oli Filth 19:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Winter 2006 Gothic Chess Review, 28 pages, circulation 4,390 copies. Reprint requests: 261

Reader's Mailbag, page 1
Fall checkmate solutions, page 5
Novice Ruminations, page 6
Seasonal Minatures, page 9
Trice vs. Polgar Explored, page 12
Middlegame Tactics, page 16
Tournament Buzz, page 18
Classic Endgames, page 20
Move Notation, page 22
Terminology, page 24

GothicEnthusiast 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm seeing this issue from my December 2006 interview of Ed Trice in New York. ChessHistorian 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Notice

This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves.

This article leads with the above sentence.

Example games of Gothic Chess cannot be followed using standard algebraic notation which is implicitly, strictly defined for Chess pieces. Instead, a modified, expanded version of algebraic notation is used. The internal link to "algebraic notation" placed here misdirects the reader.

--InfoCheck

I'm not sure I agree 100% with the aforementioned remark. Algebraic notation is board-size-independent. The "notation" is not expanded, the board is. Algebraic notation requires a letter for a file and a number for a rank. For example a 10x10 board game called Amazons technically uses algebraic notation, though very dissimiliar from chess notation. In my mind, Algebraic is an adjective, not a "standard".

GothicChessInventor 05:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Although it sounds a bit like alternative semantics to me, I accept your technical corrections to my remarks without argument. The remaining concern I have is that the internal link "algebraic notation" actually goes to a page entitled Algebraic chess notation which only describes algebraic notation for Chess on the 8 x 8 board. Is this satisfactory and consistent with what you want? --InfoCheck

This is absurd. The Algebraic notation is totally irrelevant to the board size. (This should be understood by simply looking at the diagrams.) H.J.R. Murray in his "History of Chess" uses his own version of Algebraic notation, using a slightly different method to remove ambiguity. However, if this is really bothering you, I would suggest expanding the algebraic chess notation article to include the ability to expand the notation to larger board. --Sibahi 19:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It really is not a trivial matter. Remember the important argument some of you are in the midst of over whether the Trice-Polgar example game stays upon this page? [By the way, I am neutral.] Well, the editors who want it removed can currently justify their stand even more strongly by declaring that the example game is incomprehensible except to experts who:

1. are proficient in the special algebraic notation adapted for Gothic Chess which is not thoroughly explained or referenced anywhere within the article;

and

2. have the opening setup of Gothic Chess memorized.

Note that all of the other chess variants that have example games on Wikipedia, mentioned by Andreas Kaufmann in argument, share the same, standard opening setup with Chess- a misleading omission.

Since I am neutral, I will not be "expanding the Algebraic chess notation article" for you. You will have to do this work yourself IF it is important to you. The leading sentence in this article is certainly inaccurate in stating This article uses algebraic notation to describe chess moves. In fact, algebraic notation is used to describe Gothic Chess moves. See the distinction? --InfoCheck

No, I don't. Because, first and foremost, Gothic chess is a variant of the game of Chess. Check the page of Omega Chess to see that it also uses the Algebraic Chess Notation. I suggest that you leave the opening sentence of the Algebraic Chess Notation article and look into the details, which you will find entirely consistent with the notation used here and in the Omega Chess article. It is simply this: designate the files (columns) by small letters, ranks (rows) by numbers, pieces (except pawns) by capital letters; notate the move using the piece's letter, followed by the destination square. For example, Be3. Any notation system that satisfies these conditions is Algebraic Chess Notation. Have a look here: http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/presets/ . The algebraic notation is used for all chess-like games, without anyone objecting to it. This is my last post in this matter, since the discussion is pointless. --Sibahi 07:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation was completely unnecessary. Thank you, nonetheless. This is also my last message on the subject.

I never stated or implied that Algebraic chess notation is too complicated or too difficult for me to understand. To be sure, it is simple, obvious and recognizable to me. Instead, I stated and meant that, for chess variants such as Gothic Chess, it is not explained to the reader in sufficient detail. Specifically, the symbols used for the archbishop and chancellor must be decoded logically.

You must not assume that every reader is a chess variant expert like ourselves. Besides, the reader might think it is illegal to use Algebraic chess notation on anything other than an 8 x 8 board because nowhere within that entry does it explain that it can be adapted to other board sizes.

This is an encyclopediac entry. You should methodically and thoroughly build the foundations for all information that is heavily relied upon within the article. [Well, until recently it was heavily relied upon!]. In other words, you must not use a "code", regardless of how simple, without explicitly giving the reader EVERY piece of information needed to make sense of it. Arrogantly doing otherwise is editorial incompetence. --InfoCheck

Proposal to Reinstate Trice-Polgar Game

I see that Oli Filth removed the Trice-Polgar game because of his personal crusade to remove it, not for any valid reason, although he tried listing every reason in the book. I have seen many different Wikipedia citations on policy that were posted on the article section for "reasons to remove it", then when we discussed it to demonstrate the flaws, he just inserted a new reference that tried to fit his flawed logic. It seems he is trying to say that one annotated game violates the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook idealogy.

I disagree with his assessment that one annotated game is contrary to either the spirit or the letter of the basis for avoiding the Wikipedia How To constructions.

NOTE: I agree with the Wikipedia policy, but I disagree that one annotated game is in violation of this policy.

Furthermore, the game was NOT "original research", as Oli Filth also previously stated.

It was printed in a magazine dedicated to Gothic Chess and circulated to over 4,000 readers in December of 2006.

I suggest the following...

Since Oli Filth is able to glean so much information from this all-inclusive "How To", he must now be proficient in Gothic Chess. Therefore, I propose that Oli Filth play Ed Trice a one game match to decide the point. Should Oli Filth hold out and draw, or win, then the article will be deemed to have been a comprehensive "How To" article, and it should be removed. If he is unable to hold his own, I put forth that the article is NOT a "how to" and should be reinstated.

I do not want Oli Filth to participate in this discussion. As Oli Filth acted unilaterally after "faking going through proper channels" by posting every Wikipedia label he could reference, I want him to abide by the decision made by others that write here.

Who wants Oli to demonstrate his comprehensive knowledge by playing Ed Trice a game of Gothic Chess? Vote below:

ChessHistorian 14:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC) votes for Oli Filth to play Ed Trice

I'll keep my response as short as I can:
  • This is not a personal crusade; I have no vested interest in this either way. I'm not sure that can be said about some of the other contributors thus far.
  • No-one, as far as I can see, has shown how the section doesn't fall foul of any of the policies I've discussed previously (namely WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#HOWTO). Simply saying that you "disagree" doesn't really cut it.
  • The game itself is not "original research"; as I've said several times already, it is the analysis that is the problem. Please stop focusing on proving that the game took place, because I have no argument with you there; I'm sure it took place.
  • I have not "faked going through proper channels". I posted my arguments here, some other people added further arguments that supported mine. Some people (some with an arguable conflict of interest) responded, made a lot of irrelevant points (e.g. the fact that I'm not a Gothic chess player, the fact that the Chess article is 31 sections long), but without actually tackling the key issues. One actually defended the section's retention by describing it as "This game is the quintessential example of HOW TO PLAY GOTHIC CHESS", which is precisely what WP:NOT#HOWTO is about.
  • Given that it has now been several days, and there have been (in my opinion) no relevant arguments in its defence, I took a bold step and removed the material. I freely admit that this is my opinion; however, I'm pretty sure that if you asked any independent administrator, they would arrive at the same conclusion.
  • If you still disagree, I suggest you request independent third-party dispute resolution, by one of the methods listed at WP:DISPUTE#Further dispute resolution, as there is no point in us starting an edit war. I'm more than happy to participate with a more formal process, and will abide by any formal decisions that are arrived at.
  • Finally, I'm not sure if your latest post was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but if not, please do not try to enforce your own rules about how discussions on talk pages should be carried out.
Oli Filth 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


It seems that if Oli Filth is correct he's got a great deal of editing to do right away. Every chess variant listed violates the Wikipedia How To criterion.


Chess960 The first thing you've got are Rules, Starting position requirements, & Determining a starting position. A quote from that page =


The starting position for Chess960 must meet certain rules. White pawns are placed on the second rank as in regular chess. All remaining white pieces are placed randomly on the first rank, but with the following restrictions:
The king is placed somewhere between the two rooks.
The bishops are placed on opposite-colored squares.
The black pieces are placed equal-and-opposite to the white pieces. For example, if the white king is placed on f1, then the black king is placed on f8. Note that the king never starts on file a or h, because there would be no room for a rook. The starting position can be generated before the game either by a computer program or using dice, coin, cards, etc.

If this ain't a Wikipedia How To I'd like an in depth explanation.

Dunsany's chess

I see many things Oli Filth needs to get working on right away. There are no citations!!

Again a quote =

Strategy for the pawns
In this game, perhaps even more so than in regular chess, queens are very powerful. The player who starts with 32 pawns should aim to maintain equality in the number of pawns in each file. Have pawns protect one another when possible. Capture both rooks, then try to get a pawn promoted on a square where no piece can capture it before it moves as a queen. Once you have a queen, you can get other pawns promoted. You can prevent the king from interfering with the promotion of more pawns. Administer checkmate as soon as you feel you have enough queens. Two will suffice.

OK Oli Filth get editing! I want to see all of those [citation needed] inserted on that page right away since you were so adamant about riddling the Gothic Chess page with them. Get to work!

Displacement chess

Wow, why is there no "unknown importance" labels on this article? I also see an unsourced statement yet there is no "unsourced statement" tag on this page? Why? Oli Filth you are not doing your work are you? And you call yourself an unbiased contributor? Dude, get to work, you've gots tons of material to get crackin on in the variant world. I'll even help you out on this Displacement page. Start here

The rooks and bishops are transposed. This array was suggested by Capablanca after his match with Lasker, but did not become popular.

Where is this citation? It is unsourced! I want to see that tagged as such, and dated. Also, since this is such a short stub, it should be deleted shouldn't it? What was it you said, something about 2 much noise on Wikipedia?

Transcendental chess

Only the 3rd variant on the list, and again, it needs references.

In Chess960 the back rows are mirror images, but in transcendental chess the setup of black and white is different 2879 out of every 2880 times (there being a 1-in-2880 chance that both sides will draw the same setup)

They just pullin that number out of thin air Oli Filth ? You gonna tag it and follow up diligently to make sure they properly source it? Or you gonna delete it altogether?

One way to equalize these inequalities is to play a couplet: the players play two games, one each as white and as black. To win the couplet, a player must win at least one game and draw the other.

What the heck is that couplet stuff all about? As a Wikipedia reader I am confused. Oli Filth help us out, help us, find those references, or remove that article. I can't be reading unsourced material!

Get crackin' Oli Filth don't let us down. After all, you don't want to appear biased as an Anti-Gothic Chess editor do you? I mean, can't we petition someone and get you banned from editing on this page if that is the case? I think you've shown enough bias already, taking stuff down because of your own personal reasons and then being totally hypocritical on top of it all by not even reviewing these much smaller chess variant stubs which would have been so much easier to edit.

I don't vote for Oli Filth to play Ed, I vote for Oli Filth to pack up his stuff and stay off of this page!

GothicEnthusiast 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, short but sweet:
  • If there are individual problems on other pages, then those can be discussed on the respective talk pages.
  • Whilst you can't get me banned from particular pages, you can theoretically get me blocked from Wikipedia. However, you will need good arguments to support that.
  • Please expand on "my personal reasons". Which reasons are those?
  • If you look at my edit history, you will notice that I have recently edited several chess variant pages.
As an irrelevant aside, from your recent history, you've been temporarily blocked, made veiled threats of legal action, exhibited conflict of interest, made unfounded accusations against various users, and made personal attacks. I don't think you're in any position to be taking the high ground here.
Oli Filth 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Will Oli Filth please CITE THE SOURCES OF:

made veiled threats of legal action
exhibited conflict of interest
made unfounded accusations against various users
made personal attacks

Thank you.

And let me know when you visit those pages to get working. I already pointed you in the correct direction so it should be easy for you to follow up. Unless, of course, you are just biased against Gothic Chess. Then I expect you won't make those changes I outlined, and I will use that as a reason to recommend you for blocking. GothicEnthusiast 15:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For citing my claims, certainly:
Oli Filth 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


To Oli Filth I find your remark about a "veiled threat" to be absurd. There was no threat, veiled or otherwise, in the simple asking of a question is therre? Unless, as several people have noted, you are biased, and predisposed to jump to conclusions to try and exaggerate a point. That is what you are doing: exaggerating to make a point.

I also see no evidence of "conflict of interest" cited either. Just don't provide links as if their contents are self evident. Quote the text. Summarize what you think it means. Demonstrate what is wrong with it. Then offer concluding remarks. Your constant linking to items offering "no proof of anything" is like pointing up at the sky several times a day and claiming the sun goes around the earth. Fill in the details and defend your comments. ChessHistorian 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Formal Request To Remove OliFilth from Gothic Chess Editing

I formally submitted a request to remove Oli from being able to edit this page. It is obvious that his over-insistance of documenting the source of every word printed in this article, and his constantly "changing the tags" to try and grasp onto any Wiki-policy that will allow him to remove what I believe is a necessary building block of this great article, demonstrates nothing but a POV that is biased against Gothic Chess. Congrats Oli, you have shown yourself to be POV. We gave you enough rope. You have just hung yourself.

Everyone, please visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-03_Gothic_chess

and offer more reasons to remove Oli from these pages, if I have left out any.

In good faith, signed ChessHistorian 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Sign me up! Get rid of Oli! GothicEnthusiast 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what is involved? Is this a straightfoward vote in which we can participate? Sorry for the newbie questions.

Sincerely, GothicChessInventor 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you but "[t]he Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. [They] do not impose sanctions or make judgments.", as described at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if they were, you can't have someone banned because he doesn't share your views. --Mirage GSM 12:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Trice's Gambit"

GothicEnthusiast, you've removed the {{fact}} twice now from the sentence "Currently, the most tactically ornate opening is known as Trice's gambit...", claiming that "links are provided in the very next section". Which link provides a source for the claim that this is the "most tactically ornate opening", and that it is known as "Trice's Gambit"? Oli Filth 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... sorry to butt in to your friendly debate here, but why not just edit that one sentence instead of requesting the whole thing for a reference? And why don't you show us an opening that is more tactically ornate? And why don't you look on the Gothic Chess home page for more information about it. Surely an opening named after the game's inventor must be on their own web site, or did you forget how to use your favorite tool? (hint: the Google search engine) ChessHistorian 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In what way do you suggest I edit the sentence? I assume that you aren't suggesting I remove the claim. It isn't my job to go round looking for sources, although I do do that on occasion. If you know of a reliable source, please feel free to add it! (Remember that blogs, forums, etc. don't qualify) I don't know whether the opening is "tactically ornate" or not; that's not the point. Non-neutral claims such as that should be qualified. Oli Filth 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your citation requirements are far too excessive Oli Filth. You are not asking for citations for things that need them. You are just doing it to be a royal pain. If you want to be an editor, edit. What you are doing is hacking. There are plenty of places that started talking about this Gothic Chess material, such as the naming of Gothic Chess openings, like the one here http://www.chessbanter.com/148987-post38.html. You can't require sources for things that are common sense or well known. Who first coined the term "air"? It's a word we use every day, but what does it mean exactly? Your whole attitude is in need of revision. Why don't you do us all a favor, and just go away. You're not wanted. You're not needed. And as far as Gothic Chess goes, you just don't know what you are talking about. ChessHistorian 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent Activity

Greetings to all,

I have received several phone calls today from different parts of the country telling me to visit this Wikipedia page. I see there is an avalanche of text that has sprouted up and I am not going to read all of this. I must say, I am terribly disappointed in the extreme factioning that is being demonstrated here. To those who thought it important enough to call me more than once about the same thing, during business hours, I say, while I do appreciate your vigor, I cannot condone what is being done here. Taking time from my business day to compose this message is extremely cost ineffective. And, while it is nice to have a page on Wikipedia, it is not worth it to have to log in because some Napoleanic editor from Europe is causing problems.

To everyone -- just ignore the person who is the problem. In my professional experience, people who draw such attention to themselves are lacking in some regard. They tend to be self-absorbed with nothing better to do, so by constantly battling someone with such a personality disorder, you are only furnishing fuel to burn what they are seeking to ignite anyway. If everyone lets this person have his own way, he will start hacking away at other pages to get the attention he desparately deserves. Give the baby the rattle. Then move on.

With my most sincere regards to everyone execept the person in question, GothicChessInventor 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Much of the "Bavarian Attack" was from the Austrian Gothic Chess Federation, formerly at this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20060112113928/www.gothicchess.at/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=42 The "Bavarian Attack" was originally given the name by the Bavarian Programmer of Strategiespiel programm mit intelligent rückkoppelnden Funktionen which is better known as SMIRF. I named Trice's Gambit of course, what other citation could anyone possibly need? The opening is very tactical in nature so what is wrong with referring to it as "tactically ornate?" As for other opening names like The Quagga see this: http://www.chessbanter.com/148987-post38.html You know, for someone who keeps cutting things off of articles with remarks like "There is no reference in Google" you sure are lazy Mr. Filth.

Signed, GothicChessInventor 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Trice,
I have to say I'm disappointed at you. Judging by the posts you've made before I've gathered that you are a pretty decent guy. Yet now you go as far as calling another user mentally ill without even reading his posts. Being from Finland I also cannot appreciate the way you seem to generalize Europeans as Napoleonic. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


ZeroOne, you have it wrong. A personality disorder is not a mental disorder. Perhaps being from another country, you just did not translate this properly. A personality disorder just means a person has maybe bad habits or is annoying. It has nothing to do with mental illness. Mr. Trice was referring to Oli Filt as being Napoleanic, nobody else. Again, you are reading too much into the remark.
ChessHistorian 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
My presumed mistranslation stems from the personality disorder article that begins by explaining that "Personality disorder, formerly referred to as a Characterological disorder is a class of mental illness". I fail to see why Mr. Trice wanted to add the remark that Oli Filth is European — what difference does it make if he's American, European, African or Asian? Wikipedia is a global project, we are all just Wikipedians. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ZeroOne you might have missed the point. Telling someone that they are mentally ill is an insult in this country. Mr. Trice's comment contains no insult. The clause "so by constantly battling someone with such a personality disorder" is very much "toned down" and very indirect. It is a general statement made after another general statement where he began with the opening remark "In my experience...". You were the one who said he called another user mentally ill. That did not happen.

You are "putting words into his mouth" with a very far reaching extrapolation.

I also don't see anything linking his remarks with your over generalized statement that he said all Europeans are Napoleanic. You're just not reading the words as they are written. And now I am going to have another beer and log off of my laptop. Good night to all. ChessHistorian 03:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, surely enough Mr. Trice is intelligent enough not to insult anyone directly, but I find his statement an indirect personal attack towards Oli Filth anyway. Do you think that, generally, it's acceptable to insult people indirectly? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

ZeroOne, you're asking the wrong person. Why don't you talk to the person involved? ChessHistorian 00:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional Citations

Greetings fellow Wikipedians,

I am wondering if everyone is aware that there is an archive of sites no longer on the internet. It is like a "Google of graveyard" sites. Do a search on "wayback" and you find the archive site. You can then enter in any domain name of days past, and get snapshots of what the pages looked like back then. Here is one such page from 2003 showing a game from 2001 which was, I believe, the first Trice's Gambit line ever played. Also note that way-back-when the site was GothicChess.org after a dispute over GothicChess.com errupted. We won the rights to GothicChess.com eventually and now that is all ours.

Anyway, here is the link I found

http://web.archive.org/web/20031228193422/www.gothicchess.org/game9.html

And here is a link discussing some of the early days of "Gothic" from 1998, when we were originally playing Capablanca's Chess.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031207085609/www.gothicchess.org/long_answer.html

Enjoy!

GothicChessInventor 15:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


You guys, the citation for "This variant has been deemed an improvement over Capablanca Chess by the publishers of the International Computer Games Association Journal" has been provided.

  • 80-Square Chess, E. Trice in ICGA Journal Vol. 27, No. 2 - June 2004, p. 81-96.

Someone put it in there for the citation tag, and remove the "citation needed."

The citation for "Currently, the most tactically ornate opening is known as Trice's gambit" is Gothic Chess Review, Fall 2003.

The citations for "There are some other openings in Gothic Chess that have been named so far. These are: the Colanzi Opening, the Quagga, the Philadelphia Opening, and an offshoot known as the Bavarian Attack." are numerous.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010202213800/www.gothicchess.com/how_to_play_games.html

Other links of interest, showing Gothic Chess tournament results:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010201081500/http://www.gothicchess.com/

Whoever placed the citation needed tag should be the one to put these items into the list associated with each.

ChessHistorian 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Here are my thoughts:
  • The first reference above is by Ed Trice; his deeming that it is an improvement is not the same as the ICGA deeming that it is an improvement. At best, it could be rewritten as "Ed Trice deems it an improvement..."; but I see that that as already been pulled up for WP:NPOV.
  • I'll take your word for it that the Gothic Chess Review can be used as a cite for the second item above, so I'll add the reference.
  • It looks like you've posted the wrong link for the third item; it doesn't mention any of these terms!
Oli Filth 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


There has been something wrong with the Wayback Machine website all week. An email I sent to them said they are "Re-indexing their data." I asked if this could lead to old links pointing to the wrong thing. He said "Yes, or not pointing to any page at all."

ChessHistorian 04:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Need To "Reverse" Opti Chess

Optimized Chess and Gothic chess are both variations of Capablanca chess and should be cited as such, if not in the text then as see also links. One major problem this page has experienced is that the variant Gothic Chess is be "productized" by someone who feels they invented they game. While this is a dubious assumption base on the numerous Capablanca chess variations that have been tried in the past, his personal monetary motives can not be ignored. neoliminal 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Optimized Chess is definitely a Capablanca chess variant closely-related to Gothic Chess. So, it should not have been kicked-out of the "see also" section here where it belongs just as GC belongs in the "see also" section of the Opti Chess page (where it can be found presently). This editorial action was based upon either a careless lack of knowledge or prejudice- both of which are unacceptable at Wikipedia. Now ... surely you care deeply about facts and fairness? Please investigate, confirm what I am stating and then, reverse it yourself. --InfoCheck

I refer you to the Embassy Chess talk page for a moment: [[5]]

The Embassy Chess setup is derived from that of Grand Chess. Christian Freeling's philosophy is that the Marshal (Chancellor, Rook+Knight) is the strongest piece of the game, so it's by the King's side. Also, you might notice that the two bishop-pieces are on opposite colors, AND the two knight-pieces on different colors. The King and Queen are on the e and d files, respectively, as in normal Chess. The fact that Castling is reversed was irrelevant to Freeling, because there is no castling in Grand Chess. Incidentally, I removed the links to Gothic Chess and Gothic Chess Live. they're totally irrelevant to the entry. A link to Grand Chess is of relevance, though. --Sibahi 13:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Image:chess_zh10_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zh10_26.png
Gothic Chess, starting position


Image:chess_zh10_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zver_26.png
Image:chess_zh10_26.png
Embassy Chess, starting position

And now, examine the diagrams showing Embassy Chess and Gothic Chess. For any user to suggest that Embassy is not merely Gothic with the exchanging of the positions of the King and Chancellor is just ridiculous. We have an example from the Talk page that was mentioned where some biased editor removed the Gothic Chess link from the Embassy Chess link claiming they were irrelevant comparisons.

People: You just can't say something that is absurd and have it be true.

I mention this because it is well known that the person who is involved with Optimized Chess is an antagonist of the person who invented Gothic Chess. Therefore, I submit that InfoCheck is not the least bit interested in doing anything other than perturbing things on this page.

Optimized Chess has nothing to do with Gothic Chess and it should be removed from this page, permanently.

Tell us why you think it belongs here from among the countless Capablanca Random Chess setups. Tell us why you think a setup that has nothing to do with Gothic Chess deserves mention here. ChessHistorian 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in getting drawn any further into a fastidious argument about how closely or distantly related Gothic Chess is to Embassy Chess or Optimized Chess. Obviously, there is disagreement amongst editors and chess variant experts.
I never stated that GC and Embassy Chess are identical. They will certainly play-out uniquely different games. Still, looking just at the positions, it is striking how similar those two games are.
Let's focus upon the essentials. All three aforementioned games are Capablanca chess variants. The fact that they are related is indisputable! Moreover, Embassy Chess and Optimized Chess are named games that have Wikipedia pages which make them a resource here and significant amongst thousands of CRC positions.
Let's move past the non-essentials.
1. This entry is not about the disagreements between the discoverers of GC and Optimized Chess three years ago. It is about games.
2. I am not trying to cause a disruption. I am a responsible, conscientious editor who is determined to place relevant information where it belongs.
3. This page is the property of Wikipedia- NOT of ChessHistorian. I do not require your approval to place relevant information here. Free games that are related to the commercial product you prefer cannot be arbitrarily, prejudicially disposed of to prevent the public from possibly becoming interested in them, instead. That is the risk you take when you place an entry on Wikipedia which is a free marketplace of ideas.
--InfoCheck

Optimizable Chess seems too different than Gothic Chess to me. I don't think it needs to be mentioned on this page. The king is the only piece that starts out on the same square. If you claim that Optimizable Chess needs to be on here, then I guess every 10x8 Capablanca variant needs to be here as well. GothicEnthusiast 21:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your concern is understandable but NO. I only think that the two other Capablanca chess variants with Wikipedia pages, Optimized Chess and Embassy Chess should have internal links on this page. There is plenty of precedence for this upon other game pages. The standard practice is that you have convenient links to other related games. --InfoCheck


I don't know one human player who would play that game. It just doesn't belong here. It is a subset of CRC and it can be linked off of that page. This isn't a portal to the 12,000 CRC variations. It's a Gothic Chess page. With only one piece on the same starting square, there is nothing in common to speak of.
The CRC community has elected not to support Gothic Chess, so there should be no reciprocation now that all of the Gothic Chess founders are millionaires.
GothicEnthusiast 04:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, this page is the property of Wikipedia — NOT of the Gothic Chess founders or organization NOR the CRC community. Wikipedia is neutral. Wikipedia does not endorse one product over another and may not be used for such purposes. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is making a claim about who owns Wikipedia. What is being discussed is relevance of material. Nobody has come forth to offer a valid reason why that other chess variant with 0 followers needs to be cited along side a chess variant with tens of thousands of followers. That other chess variant is just ridiculous. It does not resemble regular chess in any way, shape, or form. It has no similarity to Gothic Chess. It does not need to be linked from this page. Embassy Chess is very similar to Gothic Chess from the starting configuration, and it has the same board dimensions. CRC can create Embassy Chess, so CRC is a relevant link. That other variant is a part of CRC and is in no way related to Gothic.
ChessHistorian 12:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The number of followers a variant has is not relevant. Optimized Chess should be included because Optimized Chess and Gothic Chess are both Capablanca random chess variants with the same aim: to improve over the Capablanca chess starting position. And Optimized Chess does have the same board dimensions Gothic and Capablanca chess have. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It is obviously false to state that the number of followers for Optimized Chess is zero. I will refrain from commenting upon your extraordinary claim that GC has "tens of thousands of followers". --InfoCheck


That other chess variant only has the king in common with the Gothic Chess setup. It does not belong on this page for that reason alone. As for tens of thousands of followers, please offer your estimate of the number you think it more appropriate based on this:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/dave_bryan.gif

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/championship_room.gif

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/conor.gif

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/gothic_kids.jpg

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/supernats.gif

And here are links to thousands of online Gothic Chess players and their games:

http://www.gothicchess.com/bk_archive.html

http://www.gothicchesslive.com/all-players-games.php

GothicChessInventor 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Piece Values

The material values for Gothic Chess pieces by John Lewis are obviously inferior to those by Ed Trice. I mean no disrespect. The JL model needs more refinement. Valuing the archbishop and queen equally at 9.0 is disastrous to gameplay. I recommend that the JL set be removed. --InfoCheck

I don't think the values are "obviously inferior". However, I'd also like some more work done on the Lewis model. The arbitrarily chosen ECO C97 should have some alternatives and an average value should then be calculated. I also believe the scheme is a bit faulty as it uses the standard, "small" chessboard and adds pieces to it. 10×8 board has a lot more space which affects the piece values. I like the scheme and find it interesting but I know those facts alone don't make it suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 15:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons you mentioned, virtually every piece value in the JL set is inaccurate. You cannot use 8x8 piece values for a 10x8 board. To me, this confirms the need to remove the JL set without further delay.

Currently, the ET set is by default the only reliable one available published on the internet since Reinhard Scharnagl has quit publishing his set of values and Derek Nalls will only publish a set of values for CRC (which technically and legally GC is not a part of). --InfoCheck

{{editprotected}} The JL set is as accurate or more accurate than those shown by Trice and should be given as an alternative until such time that it can be proven that they are inaccurate as an alternative to the values given by Trice. Note that Trice's value do not match those accepted by standard chess and JL's do. Further the valuing of the archbishop and queen are the very reason to show the difference in competing valuation systems. The disparity in valuation for the Chancellor and the Archbishop alone should be cause for alarm by anyone who does serious piece evaluations. For this reason the valuations should be returned immediately. Since Trice uses the standard 1 point value for pawns, he is seriously flawed his math if he then allows for valuations of standard chess pieces other than those accepted by FIDE.

Please add back:

Using a method created by John Lewis their value as compared to standard Chess values[1]:

  • Pawn: 1
  • Knight: 3
  • Bishop: 3
  • Rook: 5
  • Archbishop: 9
  • Chancellor: 8
  • Queen: 9

neoliminal 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article's not actually protected. I've removed the expired protection tag. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From the Inventor of Gothic Chess Regarding Other Variants in the "See Also" Section

As the inventor of the game of Gothic Chess, I would like to believe what I have to say regarding the variant that I invented is relevant. What I find incredulous is the statement:

Optimized Chess should be included because Optimized Chess and Gothic Chess are both Capablanca random chess variants with the same aim: to improve over the Capablanca chess starting position.


My point is: That other chess variant might try to improve the Capablanca chess starting position, but that is no grounds for including it here. As Yoda said in one of the Star Wars originally trilogy films:

Do. Or Do not. There is no "try".

If the implied policy is that any variant inventor can claim it improves upon Capablanca Chess and it could be included in every other variant's 10x8 Wikipedia page entry, I would say that is a poor standard. And, if you say the door can be closed on some variants and not others, you are imposing a subjective view on who has access to the inner circle.

I therefore offer that the following criteria should be met in order for a 10x8 variant to be included in the "see also" section of this page.

1. If the variant was created chronologically after Gothic Chess, there must be a dedicated website for the variant in question, of the form VariantName.com.

2. That website must remain in existence for at least one calendar year before an entry can be nominated for inclusion on this page. This is to prevent someone from just registering a domain name for $8.95 and throwing it up on a server to circumvent this criterion.

3. At least one photograph of two people playing the game, and one complete game from start to finish, should be shown on the aforementioned web site.

4. At least 4 of the pieces in the back rank must be similar to the Gothic Chess starting configuration. Note that just placing the Rooks and Knights on normal squares would satisfy this very lenient requirement.

My reasons for these selection criteria.

Regarding item #1 - Capablanca's chess, Bird's Chess, and Carrera's chess all predate Gothic Chess. You might say Gothic was derived from Capablanca, but Capablanca was "improving" Bird, and Bird may have been improving on Carrera. Therefore, it seems unfair to break up this chain, as any/all of the predecessors may have been responsible for Gothic Chess having been born. If I did not read in Lasker's book about Capablanca, I would have not undertaken the journey that lead to the discovery of the Gothic Chess configuration. If Capablanca got his inspiration from Bird, and so on, then, indirectly, those predecessors impacted Gothic Chess. So, while there is no website CapablancaChess.com nor BirdChess.com nor CarerraChess.com, these variants have been "grandfathered in", and rightly so, as previously explained.

Regarding item #2 - We have seen examples in the chess variant community of authors "snubbing" prior authors, such as Fergus Duniho calling a variant "Grotesque Chess" in some underhanded slight of my patent. I have screen shots of his initial description of the game, which was nothing more than blatant pot shots at Gothic Chess. Fergus was convinced that rewording the description was in his best interest. He complied. To me, it is obvious that this other variant author is trying to do nothing except get his variant attached to mine in some way, as some perverse form of vicarious achievement. So, if he is serious in advocating that this variant deserves to be on this page, and that it is similar enough to Gothic Chess to warrant a strong following, he can demonstrate this by putting up a web site to show that there is interest his game.

Regarding item #3 - We have seen people constantly try to claim that Gothic Chess is unpopular, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary. Examples:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/dave_bryan.gif http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/championship_room.gif http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/conor.gif http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/gothic_kids.jpg http://www.gothicchess.com/images/old_events/supernats.gif

And here are links to thousands of online Gothic Chess players and their games:

http://www.gothicchess.com/bk_archive.html http://www.gothicchesslive.com/all-players-games.php

These are all historical games/photos going back to 2001, showing a longevity of 6 years, longer than most startup businesses last.

So, let's see just one photograph of one pair of people playing this variant that is supposedly so optimized.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

Regarding item #4 - There are over 10,000 arrangements possible on the 10x8 back rank. If policy will become similar variants can all post links on each others' Wikipedia pages, let's set some minimal precedent for this criteria. Since there are 2 Rooks, 2 Knights, and 2 Bishops, as well as 4 other pieces, surely if merely 2 pair are found to be in common, this is not a steep requirement to have a variant referenced from another page.

All of these aforementioned items are logical selection criteria. Since people continue to advocate the opposite being true of Gothic Chess, let them aspire to just establish a very small subset of what has been achieved in this domain before they seek to establish a strategic alignment.

GothicChessInventor 18:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So you do not think Optimized Chess improves over Capablanca Chess then? I think the criteria the page presents are convincing. I think the game does improve, it does not just try to improve over Capablanca Chess. Don't get me wrong, Gothic Chess does that too.
I don't think anyone is saying Gothic Chess is unpopular, the exact popularity has just been questioned. You say the variant has tens of thousands of followers. Well, the images prove nothing, they show about a hunder people at most and only about ten of them can be seen playing some chess variant. The bk_archive page has 782 players but there is no indication on how many games have they played. I'd say only players with ten or twenty or more games should be counted. The all-players-games page shows 2241 games which accounts to at most 4482 players. However I don't have the tools to count the players from that page right now, I'd estimate there are about 500 players listed. So even rounding upwards that accounts to some 2000 players. Throw in even a double amount of those who do not play the game online and you get 6000 players. That's still 14000 short of "tens of thousands".
Don't you think you are overreacting? All we are discussing here is one single link to another Wikipedia article. There's no way it could ever threaten the existence of Gothic Chess if that's what you are afraid of. It's just helping people find similar games. The section is called "See also", it's not called "Variants that are better than Gothic Chess", "Variants that predate/postdate Gothic Chess" or "Variants that you should play instead of Gothic Chess". It's called "See also".
—ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Dude, drop it. That "optimized" version is garbage. Nobody plays that game. It doesn't belong here. It has nothing the same except where the king is. Everything else you said has no bearing. The quote from Trice refers to sales of Gothic Chess sets. I interviewed him, saw his sales data, purchase orders, and bills. The old Talk archive here also has Andreas somebody or other showing a link to a publication that quoted 30,000 sales and that was over three years ago. Gothic Chess is a business, selling software and selling boards and pieces. This stuff didn't spontaneously create itself. There was cost. Something must be keeping the business afloat. Your comments about only counting the people you see in the photos is ridicuous. I guess there are only about 50 people in a ballpark during a sellout crowd at a baseball game because you only see closeups of the players, the umpires, the dugout, and the managers. Get with it. Wake up! You're being a stick in the mud, showing that you have something against Gothic Chess. Don't you get it? More people like it than there are people like you. So do us a favor. Take a hike.
ChessHistorian 04:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
All of the other issues you (singular) raise are irrelevant smokescreens.
Optimized Chess is indisputably a Capablanca chess variant that is related to GC. So, it is appropriately going into the "see also" section as many times as it takes for it to stick there. If you wish to get yourself blocked or banned by obsessively fighting over this petty matter using a fictitious argument, that is fine with me.
--InfoCheck
Whoah, calm down ChessHistorian. User:GothicChessInventor specifically asked for anyone to "offer your estimate of the number you think it more appropriate based on this", "this" referring to those images and two web pages, so that's what I did. I don't have anything against Gothic Chess per se, but the GC community, based on what I've seen in Wikipedia, certainly seems to be unfriendly and even uncivil and hostile. Is this the way you attract more players? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Ed raised an important topic of discussion which nobody has responded to yet. If someone claims their variant is "based on" or is "similar to" Gothic Chess, how do we measure it objectively? It is plain as the nose on my face that InfoCheck has offered no evidence for his claims. There's only 1 man on the back rank that's in the same spot as it'd be on the Gothic Chess board. Kings are both in F. Can someone tell me why with only 1 corresponding piece in the same position that variant is "related to" Gothic Chess? I'd like InfoCheck to respond to this question directly without all his nonsense surrounding it. Cite some reference backing up your claim, or just forget it. You can call a cat a fish, but it won't swim.
GothicEnthusiast 16:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is easy. Please try to follow it?

1. Optimized Chess is a Capablanca Chess variant.

2. Gothic Chess is a Capablanca Chess variant.

3. Both games are Capablanca Chess variants.

4. All Capablanca Chess variants are related to one another.

The individual cases of arguably how closely or distantly they are related do not detract from the essential fact that they are definitely related.

Identical board, identical piece types, identical number of pieces of each type, identical pawn ranks, identical north-south symmetry between the two armies, identical rules, etc.

The ONLY difference is found within the arrangement of the power pieces on their ranks.

I recognize no rational, legitimate obligation to meet the rest of your irrational, abusive demands to your satisfaction.

--InfoCheck

If I may add some arguments:
5. Optimized Chess improves over Capablanca Chess.
6. Gothic Chess improves over Capablanca Chess.
7. Both games improve over Capablanca Chess.
8. All Capablanca Chess variants that improve over it are related to one another.
—ZeroOne (talk / @) 19:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
And InfoCheck ducks another simple question and does not answer it, so I'll copy and paste it again here for GothicEnthusiast:
Can someone tell me why with only 1 corresponding piece in the same position that variant is "related to" Gothic Chess? I'd like InfoCheck to respond to this question directly without all his nonsense surrounding it. Cite some reference backing up your claim, or just forget it. You can call a cat a fish, but it won't swim.

P.S. I love that quote! You can call a cat a fish, but it won't swim. SLOpti-chess, the cat that InfoCheck claims is a fish!

ChessHistorian 06:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

CRC analysis tool

Link to CRC analysis tool seems to be absolutely irrelevant to the article on Gothic chess. Why it was added? Andreas Kaufmann 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Read thru the work and you will understand why. Position III-A-1 is Gothic Chess. It is one of 48 select Capablanca Chess positions that is analyzed. This type of detailed analysis provided is available nowhere else. --InfoCheck

I removed the CRC analysis tool. It is from a website where the author makes unfounded claims. Nothing on his website has been published in any academic circles. He can make any claims he wants about his stuff, just we won't have it linked from here.

I think we are done talking about this stuff. These guys know these discussions are able to be searched by Google, so their alterior motive is to either increase their search engine hits or try to make Gothic Chess look inferior.

I hereby reserve the right to remove any link that has already been removed for reasons already cited without iterating them again. Trust me, I'll do it, and keep doing it. Pedal your crappy variants and riduclous software tools somewhere else. I'll take them off of this page every single day. They don't belong here.

ChessHistorian 04:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You hurt my feelings! I had the highest hopes that you would be open-minded, read this work thoroughly, find it very interesting and learn a lot from it. [You desperately need to learn a lot!] Yes, I am disappointed but alas, I will NOT attempt to restore this relevant link indefinitely out of unconditional love (that is extremely difficult to muster) for the discoverer of GC. That is what kind of dude I am. --InfoCheck
Don't worry, at least the tool is still linked to from Capablanca random chess.
ChessHistorian, just a reminder: You are not the one who decides what should and what should not be included in a Wikipedia article. If a debate arises it should be dealt with a discussion instead of a unilateral announcement "No". You cannot reserve any rights to do anything like that. Besides, on the website the author does give arguments and does not make unfounded claims. Whether or not the arguments are solid is a completely different case, you obviously do not have confidence in them but I find them convincing. It's up to the reader to make their own mind about the site. The site does not even have any ads. Also, I seriously cannot see the site targeting specifically Gothic Chess or trying to make it look inferior, Gothic Chess just happens to be one of the 48 games analyzed. The site even admits that these are the best 48 games of the 12,118 possibilities that CRC offers, I don't think it's a bad achievement to be in that group. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 15:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that Andreas Kaufmann opened this part of the discussion with Link to CRC analysis tool seems to be absolutely irrelevant to the article on Gothic chess. The feelings of InfoCheck are irrelevant. The statement made by ChessHistorian (the work is unpublished) is true. If everyone that merely writes a PDF file thinks because it is uploaded to some server somewhere that makes it important, they're wrong. You should listen to ChessHistorian since he's a professional journalist. You should listen to Andreas Kaufmann because he is one of the article founders and contributors. And, correct me if I am wrong Andreas, you are one of only 4 people who have won a game of Gothic Chess against its creator (GM Susan Polgar, IM Larry Kaufman, Robert Colanzi, and yourself.)

GothicEnthusiast 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The feelings of InfoCheck are relevant as Wikipedia has an official policy of no personal attacks. If ChessHistorian calls InfoCheck's software or other works crappy or ridiculous and assumes bad faith, I think it's definitely a personal attack. Who has won a game of Gothic Chess against whom is, however, completely irrelevant. Even if Andreas Kaufmann founded this article does not mean he owns it. Andreas Kaufmann is an editor and "owns" the article as much as you, I or ChessHistorian, not more, not less. This is a wiki, you know. InfoCheck has an equal right to be heard in any case. I'd also like to hear some comment from Andreas. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The bit about having my feelings hurt was just dry sarcasm. Seriously, the reason the CRC analysis tool will never be re-submitted as a link on the GC page was communicated to me by its author:
1. GC was intentionally excluded from CRC by its discoverer Reinhard Scharnagl. (to be compliant with the International Patent on Gothic Chess which was just granted this year) ChessHistorian 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Even though position III-A-1 is GC, he has no intention of renaming the work to "select Capablanca Chess variants analysis tool" or some such just to suit its proper inclusion on the GC page.
So, the Gothic Chess gang escapes the embarrassment its strict critical analysis could cause via a very fine technicality.
--InfoCheck

Can you cite some source that Gothic Chess has been granted an international patent, ChessHistorian? Even gothicchess.com does not mention it. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 07:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I submitted your PDF file to Ed Trice and asked him to forward it to Artificial Intelligence researchers for me. He says he wants the email address of the person who created the document. That way, he will send it to Dr. Jonathan Schaeffer, solver of the game of checkers, Dr. Robert Hyatt, author of the Cray Blitz and Crafty chess programs, David Levy, a man with many chess related credits to his name, and Vas Rajilich, programmer of Rybka, and the document's author. Anyone else who wants to be a part of this list is welcome to email Ed and request to be added to the list. Ed said he will ask the reviewers to do a "Reply All" when sending back comments. Then we'll see who is embarrassed.
ChessHistorian 04:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Which PDF file did you submit? In http://www.symmetryperfect.com/shots/crc/ there are six of them and they are all needed to provide the necessary context. It would be easier to submit just that URL... if you really really need to submit something somewhere. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 04:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the not-so-kind offer but there is no way I am giving my E-mail address to Ed Trice. --InfoCheck
Translating the above by InfoCheck "I would like to take this opportunity to offer an implicit slander against the inventor of the game by allowing baseless innuendo to reside on this page."
ChessHistorian 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Please add my address zerog@mailinator.com to the list. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 05:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to symmetryperfect.com

It is already happened in the past that certain user added links to symmetryperfect.com to a number of articles. Even to the articles, where the link is not appropriate at all. Just consider these edits. Please see edits with comment "add piece valuations link" or "add link to piece valuations". I can count 16 articles, where a link was added to symmetryperfect.com from 11-Apr-06 to 21-Oct-06. I check the linked stuff (on piece values) and found them to be of pretty low quality, see discussion on Talk:Grand chess, "Piece values" section. And guess, who started the article on Optimized Chess, which was invented by symmetryperfect.com owner? Andreas Kaufmann 21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that all of the links to material of dubious quality made by AceVentura were self-corrected. The only piece values links that remain presently are of excellent quality that the author is satisfied with. By contrast, here is a vandalism edit by Andreas Kaufmann that had to be caught by another editor: Piss-On Opti Chess!.

ChessHistorian 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

>> I don't see the word "piss" anywhere in that post, but I must agree with the word use <<

ChessHistorian 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Andreas Kaufmann is a strange case. He is usually a responsible, intelligent editor. However, he is also a Gothic Chess zealot who does dirtywork upon request (as the petty venomous notice I am answering demonstrates). For your consideration ... --InfoCheck

InfoCheck is showing increasing signs of hostility. I'd like him cited for a personal attack against Andreas. And Kaufmann is much more popular as a last name in Germany and Austria than it is in the USA. Your comment about Steffan is completely unfounded, so it is an attack against him as well. Does anyone else find InfoCheck to be a bad, biased editor? I mean, seriously, who is going to play a chess variant with Knights on the edge of the board and Bishops that can't reach long diagonals with the Queens starting on the wrong colors? Should that variant be named Reverse Logic Chess, or Absurd Chess, or Mentally Challenged Chess, or something more appropriate to its design?

ChessHistorian 06:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed your point completely: why on Earth are you raising this issue here? Firstly, there is no link to symmetryperfect in this article. Secondly, you are referring to edits AceVentura made a year or more ago! Thirdly, this is Talk:Gothic chess, not Talk:Optimized Chess. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, this remark was somewhat out-of-topic. However there was a discussion about CRC analysys tool, which is also located on symmetryperfect.com. Actually, I have a strong suspicion that the owner of symmetryperfect.com misuses Wikipedia to promote his own work, inserting links to own web-page in many Wikipedia articles. This article is only just one of many... Andreas Kaufmann 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Andreas Kaufmann- If you sincerely care at all about people with an agenda misusing Wikipedia to promotion their own works at the unfair expense of others, then you need to take strong action immediately against dangerous conditions and developments at Ed Trice, Optimized Chess, Embassy Chess and especially Obliterate InfoCheck! and Obliterate Opti Chess!. Otherwise, you are just hypocritically generating false propaganda in a painfully transparent fashion to objective onlookers.
News Flash! I think AceVentura made good on his promise-threat to quit editting at Wikipedia. So, this history lesson is pointless since it comes too late to have any practical value to anyone here presently.
--InfoCheck
Isn't symmetryperfect.com owned by Derek Nalls? I don't think he has got an account at Wikipedia at all. So I don't see how "the owner of symmetryperfect.com misuses Wikipedia to promote his own work". For what it's worth, I know Andreas Kaufmann has made a lot of good edits over the time and I still respect him. I hope the feeling is mutual too. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a lot of chess variants articles on my watch list. I can't just explain how unbiased third-party person would want to add so much links to Derek Nalls home-page. If it wasn't Derek who added all these links over the time, it must be his smart dog :-) Andreas Kaufmann 20:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Because he thinks that the page has valuable resources? Also see this note from Derek Nalls. He goes by the pen name OmegaMan. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it is not possible to prove anything about it. I shouldn't have wasted my time bringing this up. Yes, Derek used OmegaMan user name in Wikipedia earlier, but then he changed it several times. Andreas Kaufmann 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

InfoCheck to be banned for 24 hours for Violating the 3-Revert Rule

I filed a report to have InfoCheck banned for 24 hours for reverting the changes made by the consensus of Andreas Kaufmann, User:GothicEnthusiast, myself, and I believe (but am not sure) of Ed Trice. I'm not sure how long it takes to process these requests. The group has spoken, we want that absurd game link removed, you have violated Wikipedia Policy, time to deal with the consequences.

ChessHistorian 04:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI- The 3-revert rule does not apply in cases of vandalism. --InfoCheck


Vandalism is not removing an unwanted link that was not there before, does not belong, as in only wanted by 1 person.

ChessHistorian 05:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For everyone's convenience, here's the link to ChessHistorian's report: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_InfoCheck_Violating_3_Revert_Rule —ZeroOne (talk / @) 06:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Castling?

In Gothic chess, what are the rules for castling? Anthony Appleyard 05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Just move the king 3 squares instead of 2, all other rules apply. Such as, none of the squares being crossed can be threatened, nor can the king/rook have moved before, etc.

ChessHistorian 05:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The History of Gothic Chess

There was a great deal of material about Gothic Chess that I couldn't use in my articles when checkers was being solved (for the obvious reason.) The history of the game, how it got started, the obstacles that were overcome, the disagreements that happened as the company grew in size and took on new workers, all of it is interesting material. There was a "mutiny" of sorts as some of the old guard persuaded new stockholders to vote certain ways in important shareholder meetings. By a margin of one vote, the company was spared dissolution in 2002 as the costs associated with getting the patent put a severe strain on the company. Had things gone differently, they could have split their profits, dissolved the company, and moved on. I think this would make an interesting addition to the article, what do some of the others think?

ChessHistorian 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can cite all that into reliable sources and keep it NPOV, then be my guest. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It would be a fun section, and certainly fun to see people arguing about it like every other aspect of this article. --Sibahi 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As ZeroOne said, if it's all RS and NPOV, then it's probably a worthwhile addition. I would focus on the history of the game, rather than that of the business though, as this article is about the game. (P.S. My apologies for accidentally removing this talk section earlier. Thanks for correcting that, Sibahi.) Oli Filth 14:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.