Talk:Wolf chess

Rules

I think the elephant is extremely overpowered under Bodlaender rules! (Estimated value: 15 pawns, not counting its carpet-bombing abilities.) I think it makes more sense if it is an amazon instead (11 or 12 pawns). Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bodlaender mentions having a copy of the original rules... I posit that since the elephant only appears after pawn promotion it is fine if that, like often in normal chess, decides the game. But anyway, it is not for us to use our opinion to change the rules of the game. MarSch (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acc. to CECV, Pritchard *also* had copy of the Wolf-Schach source booklet. The two conflicts were reported in the footnotes. The rules weren't "changed", one was simply selected for the body presentation, with the footnote, for simplified presentation. It's a short article so the footnotes aren't easily missed. I'm not sure that incorporating the two conflicts into the body is an improvement, it might just cause a reader more confusion. IHTS (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: user 84.175.141.80 accessed orig booklet & resolved above conflict. [1] --IHTS (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Three-Man Chess which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wolf image

Is it really necessary to include an image of a wolf? Just because the game has something called a wolf doesn't mean you should have an image showing one. It doesn't serve any purpose. Derpyhoi (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows, no image in any WP article is "necessary" (or "really necessary"). So that argument is kind of misguided. The argument "it doesn't serve any purpose" is better. The policy is MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. IMO the image to some degree supports the caption "The wolf, fox, and elephant represent formidable compound pieces in wolf chess.", thus to some degree facilitates understanding, thus to some degree is not primarily decorative and acceptable under policy. But I won't argue further for the image, since it's a subjective call. Last, IMO the image makes the article more enjoyable to read, and WP articles (especially Featured articles) are supposed to be "enjoyable to read". --IHTS (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]