Talk:Taikyoku shogi

message: As stated in the second paragraph “Several documents describing the game have been found; however, there are differences between them.”  This may be the cause for some of our headaches.  I liked the Java game because the piece movements where easer to define, however, it may not be as reliable a source as I thought, or it may be based on a different document than the jp.wiki.  I have noticed some of the piece movements are reversed or different all together. Promotions may be affected also. The game is never updated so some of the info may be old.
A set of scans from Sekai no Shogi by Isao Umebayashi, a Japanese book about shogi variants, published in 1997 by Shogi Tengokusha, is archived at the Shogi Variants Group at onelist.com.  The scans include diagrams and some explanations of the moves of the various pieces, as well as the initial setup.  To view these, it is necessary to register with onelist. Of course, this information is never updated and may be based on only one document.
I got an expert, Colin Adams, to help with tenjiku shogi.  The expert to ask for taikyoku is George Hodges. He posts to the Yahoo shogi club but I don’t know his E-mail address.  I’m not a member of onlist or the Yahoo club but it might be worth taking a look.
Update: I have an address; george.hodges@talk21.com but I don’t know if it is current. Same with the address; 
George F. Hodges
P.O. Box 77
Bromley, Kent BR1 2WT
England
Tel. (44) 81 - 468 7050, Fax (44) 81 - 295 1550.
It might be nice to get a copy of his booklet: George F. Hodges, Rules for historic Shogi variants. It can be ordered from the address above, though I can’t be sure if taikyoku is in it.
JTTyler 14:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reference! I'm fairly certain that taikyoku is not in Hadges pub, as that's fairly old. kwami 19:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you mean in Yahoo! groups? Houston-chess is the only one I see. kwami 21:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: You should use diagram description.--119.108.116.221 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The piece movements

message: The move description for the following one is inconsistent (what does it do orthogonally forwards) and I haven't any sources to repair it:
Raiding falcon
 * Step: The raiding falcon can move one square orthogonally forward or sideways.
 * Range: It can move any number of free squares in a straight line orthogonally forward.
Note that the corresponding piece in Wa shogi looks different from this piece in any possible interpretation and/or correction. 84.165.213.139 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: L. Lynn Smith has a step diagonally forward. So I plug this one in. 134.96.51.209 (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't see a problem here, the moves given for the White Horse are ranging.134.96.51.209 (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with a few pieces 

message: Why not move the legend use for the layout into the table of names of pieces?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.193.68 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit suggestion 

message: "A move consists of moving a single piece on the board and potentially promoting that piece or displacing (capturing) an opposing piece." should probably be changed to "A move consists of moving a single piece on the board and potentially displacing (capturing) an opposing piece, promoting that piece if it is able to promote." The current wording implies that a piece can promote without capturing, which isn't possible in a promotion-by-capture game. The suggested way states that the moving piece (regardless of what it is) has the potential of capturing, and that if the piece is able to promote it will (since promotion-by capture is compulsory) but accepts that not all pieces will promote (since the moving piece may be of a sort that doesn't promote, or because it's already been promoted).TKR101010 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game play ... 

message: Neither the English, or the Japanese article (assuming some of the information is taken from it) list any sources, only few external links at the end. Shouldn't this be corrected? Theon144 (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been moved to http://taikyokushogi.pv.land.to/taikyoku.html and http://taikyokushogi.pv.land.to/taikyoku.swf. OosakaNoOusama (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a single source? 

message: Hi, I have two questions about the range-capturing pieces (great general, vice general, etc.).
* They are said to capture all the pieces they jump over, does it really include the friendly ones (as the phrase implies)?
* Can they capture by displacement like the other pieces?
UseresuUK (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No and no (I think). Double sharp (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct answers are yes and yes. OosakaNoOusama (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Source please? Would be really interested. I'm planning to add Betza notation to this article at some point and this will change it slightly (and I need to make up a new symbol for friendly fire, also known as the ability to capture friendly pieces). Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably no more reliable than our own convictions, but on this page they seem to have answered by ‘yes’ and ‘no’ (that is, range-capturing pieces capture also the friendly pieces they jump over, but they cannot capture by displacement) – just try to move, for instance, the great general. Well, in fact it is slightly more complicated: the great general (as well as the other range-capturing pieces) does have the ability to capture by displacement, but only when the move does not involve a range capture. UseresuUK (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since taikyoku is super inconsistent with everything below, I'll exercise my right to personally reject every rule I don't like when I try playing it! :-P Double sharp (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (P.S. In tenjiku, where these pieces probably first appeared, the answers would be no – only the hapless piece they land on is captured – and yes.) Double sharp (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range-capturing pieces 

message: Wondering about the English name of 山鳩	. In this article it is listed as "Mountain dove" (MD), and this is the literal meaning of the two kanji. Japanese Wiktionary, however, appears to list 山鳩 as a common name for the turtle dove. See: . I don't speak Japanese though, so I'm not sure if this translation holds for the shogi piece. (See also: :ja:山鳩). Can someone who speaks Japanese weigh in? —Pengo 01:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't speak Japanese (*yet!*), but I'm going to weigh in anyway... The shogi piece would be sufficiently obscure that I don't really know if it has a standard English name, as it would be so little-mentioned. So I would just use "turtle dove", following the usual meaning of 山鳩, and which would generate a distinct mental image of the piece. (In a sense what you call a piece is secondary to its movement powers, but the name probably provides some sort of insight as to what the players or game designers were thinking.) The mountain dove doesn't appear in any smaller historical shogi variant, so unfortunately we cannot use that as a guide to naming. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Seconded. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The ja interwiki gives yamabato 山鳩 as an alternate name for kijibato 雉鳩 "Oriental turtle dove, Streptopelia orientalis". Keahapana (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (Well, the shogi piece uses the Sino-Japanese reading sankyū...) Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain dove or turtle dove? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Taikyoku shogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100724065418/http://taikyokushogi.hp.infoseek.co.jp:80/taikyoku.html to http://taikyokushogi.hp.infoseek.co.jp/taikyoku.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111111183546/http://taikyokushogi.hp.infoseek.co.jp/taikyoku.swf to http://taikyokushogi.hp.infoseek.co.jp/taikyoku.swf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Available online, with some interesting comments on taikyoku (p.130ff). Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Hodges' ''Ten Shogi Variants'' 

message: Can we please have sources for these changes? Some of them (e.g. promotion of the king) directly contradict Isao Umebayashi's published account. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes by [[User:Fonsecafrancesco04|Fonsecafrancesco04]] and [[User:79.30.127.92|79.30.127.92]] 

message: Hello. So this was originally posted at help desk and here. Finally moved it here, as its related to this page. After reading  and others, the best course of action may be to move back the title of this page to Taikyoku shōgi without the macron (Taikyoku shogi). 
Pinging users who maybe interested:  OkayKenji (talk page) 04:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for telling me.--Thylacine24 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Note As of right now, I've made a request at WP:RM/TR, to turn the page back to Taikyoku shogi on the reason it was not discussed. Most likely after that we can determine consensus.  OkayKenji (talk page) 04:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Moves, [[Taikyoku shogi]] to [[Taikyoku shōgi]]  

message: so the dovine sparrow has ambiguity right
there is ñœ piece that has assymetric movement & ñœ mirrored counterpart
Ï believe that the dovine sparrow is the mirror of the dovine turtle, who doesn't have any ambiguity. thus, Ï believe that we shuld belive the first doagrma & not the seconf Evan Tsipas (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  d Ï v Ï n se æ   s p æ r r k o  w