Talk subpage for IHTS and Double sharp

a few of the huge Betza variants

Are there enough piece icons to do Ralph Betza's 16×16 chess? (I think I'm in love with the idea.) We have the six orthodox piece types; we also have a princess and empress. We need an FD (kylin, though H.G.Muller tends to translate the shogi name culturally to "unicorn" IIRC, which would not be too bad), a WFA (dunno if there's a name; originally he wanted a phoenix – WA – but then the c- and n-pawns are undefended), an NLJ (which he calls a "superknight", but I'd use the problemist name "buffalo"), and a rose! (Yes, my procrastination a few years ago on writing about that piece is coming back to haunt me.)

If so then we could also mention that it grew out of his 3D chess idea (which really needs a page of its own as well). It also has a 16×16×16 version, but he himself admitted that perhaps a game with 512 pieces per side is a bad idea likely to take over 2000 moves. Also, the 3D rose seems designed to make nearly everyone's brain short-circuit. I'm not quite sure how it ought to move. If every step has to be of length √5, creating an equilateral octagon (it can't be regular no matter what piece you're creating the circle with; the proof is left as an exercise to you), then the steps have to all be knight-moves. But do they have to stay in one plane, creating three axial cross-sections of a sphere? This would fit in with the way Betza described the 3D knight; simply (0,1,2). But this is a purely 2D move alternating (1,2) and (2,1), with the third coordinate always fixed at zero displacement. A possible 3D rose could have that but also add the 3D move alternating (0,1,2), (1,2,0), and (2,0,1). Such a move would start at 1e4 and proceed to 1g5, 2g7 and 4h7, and then the symmetry takes care of the rest: 6g7, 7g5, 7e4, 7c3, 6c1, 4b1, 2c1, 1c3, and finally it is back at 1e4 again. This move is centred around the 4e4 square, and if I have gotten this right this is the square directly between two diametrically opposite squares on the 3D rose's path. What an astonishing piece! Not one I want to face down! What an arc! It might be stronger than the 3D queen; although it cannot force mate (obviously, since it cannot control two adjacent squares), it sure does a good job at confusing the opponent completely.

BTW, I'm somewhat dissatisfied with the way we currently handle the problem that everyone invents their own names for the princess and empress. Since these are the scholarly names, and we are at least trying to be an encyclopedia that can compete with the famous scholarly ones, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to use these names consistently in WP. For example, in Capablanca's chess, we'd mention his new pieces as "princess (which he named the archbishop)" and "empress (which he named the chancellor)" at first, and then use the problemists' names. They're scholarly and they never had any competition in the fairy chess tradition. (And with the sheer number of people who read Wikipedia, it might become an actual standard!) Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried it on the main chess variants page and Betza's Almost Chess (as an example). I think it works well to standardise when you list them all together, but am concerned that maybe doing it on the individual game pages interferes too much with their creators' intentions. But maybe I am overthinking it and the names aren't as important as the way the piece moves? I do like the theme of the problemist names for these three queenlike pieces, but the hierarchy they imply is perhaps overdone for the minuscule value difference (princess = 8, empress = queen = 9 on 8×8; presumably the queen is stronger on 16×16 with princess and empress becoming practically equal). Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree with the order of specification in articles re inventor name vs scholarly name, here compare:

Capablanca chess: A variant by the former world chess champion, José Raúl Capablanca. Played on a 10×8 board with chancellor (empress) and archbishop (princess).

Capablanca chess: A variant by the former world chess champion, José Raúl Capablanca. Played on a 10×8 board with empress (chancellor) and princess (archbishop).

To me, the first way is the only correct way to present, the second way is awkward. (For several reasons. Grammatically, what's parenthetical is supposed to provide add'l info on what went berfore, and the sentence is supposed to be able to stand alone without the parenthetical. So in the first case, "(empress)" provides the "real" definition or universal identity of the piece. In the second case, "(chancellor)" provides add'l info re what the inventor called the piece. The topic is the inventor's game, in the flavor they invented it, so the inventor names I don't think can be considered optional at all [also I think it would severely disappoint inventors to see their chosen names eliminated from encyclopedia entries on their games, and even impractical too since their notation systems and potential databank of recorded games may be based on 1st char of their chosen names], and s/b presented upfront [first]. Otherwise [especially for anyone fully familiar with the variant] the reading is clumbsy because first presentation forces attention on something unfamiliar or even possibly alien, causing stumbled reading [whereas the scholarly name second is in that case "educational"/standardization info that properly fits better the purpose of parentheticals].) Ok, IHTS (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup makes sense. I'll edit it accordingly today. What do we do though when the inventor does not name his piece (like the NB in Betza 16×16)? Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did it.

In cases where the inventor does not name his piece, I think the scholarly name (if it exists) makes sense to use. (Which makes it possible to do Betza 16×16, except that it looks really strange to have "princess" together with "chancellor" – so maybe "archbishop" would be preferred here to keep consistently with Capablanca – and that I do not know of a scholarly name for the king+alfil compound. Is there some sort of encyclopedia of fairy pieces?) Double sharp (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the names I'd use: nothing but Betza's notation as names (mentioning of course also what else they have been called standardly), except for archbishop and chancellor (which he so names the princess and empress in his article). These eight piece types will get their usual diagram figurines. The NLJ will be an Omega Chess Fool, saving the inverted knight for the rose; WFA and FD will be Omega Chess champion and wizard respectively. For the 24×24 version with added wazir and ferz(!?!), I will again use inverted rook and bishop respectively. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as you pointed out, the CV article you indicated (who is author BTW?) uses chancellor (C) and archbishop (A). There really s/b more template chess diagram piece icon options w/ pieces turned on their sides in add'n to inverted. (When I needed, e.g. Quatrochess, I just made my own graphic.) I'd probably use the K turned on its side to represent W/WFA. (Dickins in A Guide to Fairy Chess lists Ks on their sides as Protean or Joker kings. [Was able to locate my copy! If memory serves you don't have that book!? You s/ really get it methinks - a *host* of detailed info including extensive Fairy bibliography. The book is over my head, I bought as a reference but for you w/ = "good reading". ;) ]) For superknight I guess anything alien works (like you I picked an Omega piece for sorcerer in Rhombic Chess#Parachess). p.s. I'm open to mailing you my copy of Dickins's book for your inspection if you want. (You s/ really acquire that book!) Also if you think you need a graphic ala Quatrochess for 16×16 or something in future just let me know. IHTS (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your strong recommendations, I'll try looking around for it! I abused the omega chess champion for WFA; its actual move (WAD) is not too different. The wizard (FL) was abused for the kylin (FD): hey, at least both are colourbound. I think that's the best we can do without making up new symbols. This scrapes us through to 24×24.

On thinking, though, I'm not sure the 24×24 version is really well-defined. The article says: "Push 9 boards together in a 3x3 square, symmetrically replicate all the unique pieces from the Four Board Chess [an alternate name for this variant] lineup, add a W beside the K, two Fs flanking the K ans [sic] W, and you have a game." What does "symmetrically replicate" mean? Do we have two queens flanking the ferzes, wazir, and king, or do we have two chancellors? Both could be reasonable interpretations. I might picture one possible set-up while noting that it is only one possible interpretation of just what was intended. Neither is Four Board Shatranj completely well-defined, because Betza apparently couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted an RA or an RF in the line-up.

What I'm really curious is: the 3D rose appears to be a well-defined piece. (Annoyingly, Betza appears to have been clear in his mind from his article what it was, but didn't provide an example. However, I think my first interpretation from above – allowing you to select a plane and perform a 2D rose move in it – is almost certainly the correct one. Why? All of Betza's 3D versions of 2D pieces can stay on their current level and perform their 2D move, and this interpretation is the only one that allows it. The other one doesn't allow you to perform a 2D rose move. So I think the evidence points to this.) This means that 16×16×16 chess is completely well-defined if you translate the rules accordingly (castle with any rook you can get to; the real kings are on 8i1 and 8i16; etc.). Such a chess variant would have 16³ = 4096 cells. This is bigger than even taikyoku shogi with 1296! Is that a record? I do believe it might be. (I wouldn't play it by email...) Double sharp (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. How would you explain the rose's move? I am struggling to make it clear. Double sharp (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC

I can help w/ the caption prose if you want, meantime here's out of The Classified ECV p. 143 (I can't find Rose in Dickins's book, which isn't surprising since it's corrected version of ed. copyright 1969 and Rose was invented 1968 [BTW you don't have the Pritchard encyclopedias!?]):

The Rose makes a sequence of knight moves as long as the road is clear, veering consistently to left or right after each. On a sufficiently large and otherwise empty board, a rose on g7 can move to e8 and then on to c7, b5, c3, e2, g3, h5, and back to g7, or on to d10, e12, g13, i12, j10, i8, and again back to g7, and similarly after each of its other initial jumps; a drawing of the resulting pattern makes the name obvious. It was invented by Robert Meignant in 1968 for use in problems. (Cazaux) [Text editorial]

IHTS (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness, here is the entry in Hooper & Whyld's The Oxford Companion to Chess (1987 ed., I don't have the more current ed., and I don't know if you have this book) p. 285:

ROSE, a line-piece invented by the French composer Robert Meignant (1924– ) in 1968 and used in fairy problems; it is moved like a nightrider but on an octagonal path. For example, on an otherwise empty board a rose at a4 could be moved by way of b6, d7, f6, g4, f2, d1, b2 to a4, its starting point; it could also be moved on this path anti-clockwise; or it could be moved on the paths a4–b6–a8, a4–c5–d7, a4–c5–e4–f2, a4–c3–e4–f6–e8, and a4–c3–d1.

IHTS (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I am rather short on essential CV sources. (But I would certainly not mind being emailed them! You can certainly use the WP email.) Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? (Don't have any Emailable CV sources. Did I misread?) IHTS (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry: I misunderstood your "mail" to mean "email" from above. Double sharp (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dyk

I wonder if we could manage it? Simply "...that chess can be played on four boards?" sounds lame. If the 16×16×16 version is the largest, that would be much stronger, but how does one source that, even if it is true? Double sharp (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to source. But re board size, Pritchard says Infinite Plane Chess and Dense Chess have mathematically infinite size boards. IHTS (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Maybe 16×16×16 is still the largest finite one, though again I cannot source this. Double sharp (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is too. Agree w/ diffuculty re sourcing. (Perhaps a difficulty is that it's like proving a negative: "no notable variant has a larger board".) If I'd go thru each individual entry in ECV/CECV to confirm it is larger than any of those 1,450 published variants, the conclusion w/ still prob be WP:OR. IHTS (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a stretch to define notability of a chess variant by whether or not it appears in (C)ECV or some other published source, in which case it would not really be OR. Nonetheless, is 16×16×16 itself notable under this criterion? I doubt it appears in (C)ECV, although 16×16 certainly does. Double sharp (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CECV contains no 3D Betza variant. Re WP:OR, I didn't mean the 16x16x16 game, rather the claim of it having the largest finite board. IHTS (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could perhaps use his statement "I suppose you might need very long arms to move the pieces, and a telescope to see the enemy King, it's so far away." ^_^ This is about the hypothetical (not fully specified) 64×64×64. Double sharp (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of V. Parton in that some game inventions were essentially ideas that went untested. IHTS (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nemoroth

Nemoroth needs a WP page. (I reread it. Still just as awesome as when I first found out about it four years ago.) But it really needs themed diagrams, and I really do not know how to do that. (Using the orthodox chessmen would work, but seriously?!) Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I used letter representations in Dragonchess and 2000 A.D. (I'm not a graphic artist. I have a contact who is and does wonderful work, but I'm not willing to pay his hourly rate for Wikipedia purposes!) I suggest using letters and replacing w/ apppropriate icon creations if/when someone invests to make them. p.s. Here's how Pritchard descibes the Human: "[...] Humans (who seem to have a fairly limited outlook on life but may eventually promote to Zombies, [...])." ;) IHTS (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing indeed!

I am tempted to forego the usual diagrams in favour of wikitable diagrams (like at tenjiku shogi or ko shogi – these two are the ones to look at BTW if you are interested in pushing Betza notation to its limits) so that I can at least customise the colours as I want. (And I am sorely tempted to use bolded Latin letters in Courier typeface for the pieces.) Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are nice colors. Definitely bold. Courier (New) has some personality; Arial is more universal. IHTS (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]