Talk:Three-dimensional chess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-Importance on the importance scale.
Knight chess piece This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.


Contents

[edit] Night Move

When you said that a night can move one cube rookwise then one bishoplike move it is possible for it to move through all 3 planes, ie, it moves one square forward, then one left, then one down. I sugest replacing that with it moves two cubes rookwise, then one cube rookwise in a perpendicular direction, thus meaning the entire move can take place on one plane, unless of course what can be interpreted from what is already written is true (moving through all 3 planes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J4ck 7he Ripp3r (talk • contribs) 07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the text "Rooks, bishops, and knights move as they do in Chess in any given plane" makes it clear that you can't do the knight move that would change three coordinates at once, but you're right that the rook-step plus bishop-step description is flawed (and in multiple ways). I've replaced that text by describing it as a (0,1,2) leap. I didn't try to explain that further; hopefully the context will make it clear to anybody familiar with standard chess. 76.202.61.191 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3D chess non-existent?

Did you mean non-existent? And if so, that's not really true... if people have made up the rules for it and built boards for it, it's real. -- Wapcaplet

But I mean, can we really play 3d chess now? Don't we need some kind of equipments that we don't have now? -- Taku 17:43 14 May 2003 (UTC)
Yes, it is actually possible to play star trek 3D chess! Look at the sites I've inserted on the wikipage of Three-dimensional chess: there are also instructions on how to build a chessboard! :-) Marco
Also, there is a very active 3D email chess club at Yahoogroups playing the Millennium 3D Chess* variant which uses three standard 8 by 8 chess boards. Go to http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Millennium_3D_Chess/ or visit the Millennium 3D Chess* home page at http://www.geocities.com/william_dagostino/ --Will 20 June 2006

[edit] ST vs Ginga Eiyu densetsu 3D chess

Takuya, are you sure that the 3d chess variant played in Ginga Eiyu densetsu is the same as the one played in Star Trek? -- Derek Ross 17:31 14 May 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure. I will clarify it in the article. -- Taku 17:43 14 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] ST Tri-D Chess NOT 3D chess proper; definition of latter

I believe that Star Trek chess is NOT 3-d chess, rather, it is normal chess, on a normal board, with the only difference being that different parts of the board are at different elevations. Ive seen nothing on Star Trek to indicate that the rules are different, only the appearance of the board is different. Pizza Puzzle

This sounds to be about right. To dimensionalize the chess game you need to put ANOTHER board of the same size (8x8) over or under the original game itself. Also the original rules need to be kept in place. This is what has been done at rules for 2 or more boards. This gives those who think it is to difficult to play on a 3-D board a chance to try it out. It is also a stepping stone to more boards as the mind begins to analize more than one board.--Paul 20:35, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is how 3Dc(broken link) works. You have three 8x8 boards stacked vertically. The middle board plays like normal chess, but the upper and lower boards have additional pieces which can move between the boards. --Darac Marjal 21:29, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I guess the ST scriptwriters thought of Tri-D chess being three-dimensional by the feature of its three vertical boards (plus the extra 'attack boards'). If not, they certainly got away with it by calling the game Tri-Dimensional instead of three-dimensional, didn't they? :-) I'd say the Tri-D chess material is a relevant part of the article. One might make it more precise by mentioning the above. --Wernher 20:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Tri-D Chess isn't a three-dimensional chess unless a piece can move directly upwards and downwards in addition to all other movements. The Tri-D Chess in Star Trek has boards at different levels, but it does not qualify as a Three-dimensional chess. Should we remove it?
O—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 22:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Tri-D chess is not pure 3-D chess - but neither is it pure 2-D chess. It's somewhere in the middle. The real question is whether or not Tri-D chess is worthy of a stand-alone article. If not, then I think it should stay here. Although not strictly 3-D in nature, it is more widely known as "3-D Chess" than "Tri-D Chess" so this is where people would expect to find it. --Macduff (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know where a copy of the 3Dc chess rules can be found? How about a set? User:Green Herring

[edit] Asimov story with 3D chess

The Asimov story with 3D chess was actually A Perfect Fit. Pebble In The Sky had a normal chess game - Asimov deliberately used a real game and gave all the moves in the story because he didn't like typical fictional descriptions of chess games. Ekaterin 12:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Chess

I just wanted to point out that Dragon Chess should be mentioned as well. Actually when I read the article on Dragon Chess I came here to find out which was first, Star Trek Chess or Dragon Chess. The concept behind both is nearly identical, by the description of how it looks anyway.

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)