Talk:Dai dai shogi

message: A great deal of the move sets are incorrect. If the Japanese wiki is the only source it is also incorrect. Try looking at the history of chess page cited at the bottom of this wiki for correct moves per George Hodges. He got the rules DIRECTLY from authorities on the matter in Japan. 
DDS is a great game... I highly recommend it!
-Shumby
:Thanks. I did need to proof this article. The problem in that Hodges is also several steps removed from the original docs. I've asked for help on Japanese wiki and been given refs, but no direct answers with the discrepencies. 
:Japanese wiki in down right now, but here's the problems I see that I have yet to note on the page: Great elephant, great dragon, savage tiger. 
:PS. The great dragon move is too interesting to be a mere misreading. kwami 22:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, the great dragon and great elephant need alt diagrams, but I don't have time for that right now. kwami 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should do it. kwami 08:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no idea when you posted this, but yes, that is a good argument. I'll change the article accordingly. kwami (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Ah, the tai shogi description suffers from the same problem. There would seem to be a more systematic problem. Perhaps the Japanese sources are ambiguous (they are very sparsely worded), and these are two interpretations of what was meant. kwami (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move set confusion 

message: I speedy failed this article for Good Article status. Based on the time of my review: , the article does not have use sources. Please read again WP:CITE and supply this article with reliable sources to support the three pillars of Wikipedia: verifiable, no original research elements and neutral point of view. The article is also very long (>100Kb) which is not appropriate per WP:MOS. The reason is that the current article looks like a manual for the game itself, rather than an encyclopaedia article. Please read again what is not a WP article. If all of these matters are resolved, then you can resubmit this article again for GA. — Indon (reply) — 13:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: This article needs to be split up.  OneWeirdDude (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions? Or just ruminating? kwami (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do it the way the Japanese Wiki article does it: An individual article for each piece.  Samboy (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Would we do that for all the shogi articles, or just this one? kwami (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If consensus decided it should be done, we would probably only do it for the really huge Shogi variants; anything larger than Chu Shogi.  Personally, I don’t think it’s necessary or a good idea; it’s a lot more convenient to download or print all of the rules at once using the current one-variant-per-page form.  I think we’ve removed the “This article is bigger than 32k!” warning we used to have when editing articles, and WP:MOS doesn’t mention anything about maximum suggested article size, so I say keep it as-is.  Broadband is pretty universal these days. Samboy (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split up article. 

message: I am increasingly suspicious that the games larger than dai were never actually played to any significant extent, and that of the larger-than-dai games, only tenjiku deserves a revival (and it may in fact have been conceived as a replacement for dai in the sho-chu-dai triangle). Allow me to quote Jean-Louis Cazaux's website. The (Shinsen) Yūgaku ōrai from c.1350 writes "Games of Dai Shogi and Chu Shogi, kemari, wind or string instrument, renku, classic poems, composition, etc. are subject to gambling for many people." (translation by Kimura). An entry from 1424 from the diary of Hanasakai Sandaikai writes "Played shogi with Sedate Motoyuki .... I received a Free King [queen] handicap". This could either be chu or dai shogi. Cazaux also writes "Many diary references of the time seem to maintain the distinction between [dai] shogi, middle [chu] shogi and little [shogi] shogi and indeed many of them imply that little shogi was generally regarded as merely a boys' game." Also in the SRZ, though sho and chu are mentioned, knowledge of them is taken for granted as they are not describe (so that it really only describes dai, dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, and tai). Some 14th- and 15th-century diaries mention playing chu shogi often, so presumably during this time dai was dying out in favour of chu (hence why the 1443 SRZ had to explain the former but not the latter). Though it still apparently retained prestige, as Ise Sayadori's Sogo Ozoshi writes "When you face your shogi opponent open the box containing the pieces and put the pieces on the board...to finish setting them up too quickly is a breach of politeness. It is also impolite to be too slow and to make the opponent wait. Practice therefore so that you can set up the pieces in just the right time. This applies also to both middle shogi and little shogi." (so unqualified "shogi" still could have meant dai shogi at this time). The true death of dai-shogi, relegating it to a curiosity like dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, and tai apparently always were, must have come by the beginning of the 17th century, with the following statistics from Minase Kanenari, maker of shogi pieces:
Variant           	Number of sets made (1590–1602)
Sho shogi         	618
Chu shogi         	106
Dai shogi         	2
Dai dai shogi     	2
Maka dai dai shogi	3
Tai shogi         	4
Evidently the disappointing numbers for the four large variants are from a few diehard Edo-period otakus. (Although since I post incessantly about these large variants I cannot judge them at all.)
:Maybe not even that, since Masukawa's 2004 paper says that the large sets were intended only for display, not for actual playing. (Just as well since it does not appear that there were ever standard rules for the variants larger than tenjiku.) Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of all this, I am tempted to agree with Kaufman's conclusion that the games larger than chu (except tenjiku) are jokes that were never meant to be seriously played. Dai is of course an exception: as the first really huge variant it makes sense that it is not that fun to play, and was later streamlined into chu. That was not a joke, certainly; but chu supersedes it as it is the final evolution of dai. Tenjiku is actually well-designed, and based on the Japanese Wikipedia giving standard piece abbreviations, quite possibly has a history that is now lost to us. (Chu shogi has history too; much of it is lost to us now.) Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

text: BTW, since the SRZ dates from the 15th century and the other two (SZ and SSZ) from the 17th, is it not possible that the discrepancies are because the large games (dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, and tai) evolved slightly within two centuries? This would not require many players, of course; it would just require a touching up of the rules by those Buddhist monks. But if so, then it seems like the SZ and SSZ should be taken as primary, as they are the final attestations of the rules of these games, preserved as they either died completely (dai, and chu outside Kyoto) or never lived (dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, tai, and sadly tenjiku, which really does not deserve to lie here in this pair of parentheses). Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. After having tried both chu and dai on SDIN (winning a game of dai in 458 plies): even dai isn't that bad. It's possible to remember the new pieces, and the fact that they all promote to golds is a great help. Chu, dai, and tenjiku really do deserve to be played more: they are really well-designed. I have to wonder though if dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, and tai are simply jokes – although maka-dai-dai alone among them could be taken seriously. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: (Although dai is probably good only for the very bored...) Double sharp (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Is this not exactly the same thing as an area move (cf. tenjiku), with the exception that it is maR for the hook mover instead of maK or maF, for instance? (Takes two moves of a rook/king/ferz/whatever piece you please, but must stop when it captures.) Double sharp (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hook moves 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dai dai shogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070920062503/http://www.luckydog.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/games/shogi/daidai.htm to http://www.luckydog.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/games/shogi/daidai.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Try to use the following mnemonic set for Shogi variant boards.
Here's what it will look like for Dai dai shogi.
Mistakes
* Black poisonous snake: The move shown here for the mnemonic piece used in this diagram viewed from Black's perspective is sWfAbD.
301fieriw (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mnemonic device piece set