Talk:Chinese checkers

message: There are serious inconsistencies with the Chinese version of this page.  For instance, the image on the Chinese page (and the version I play with my in-laws) shows the pieces are 5-deep (15 pieces per player), versus the images on the English page show the pieces are 4-deep (10 pieces per player).  This also implies a maximum of 3 players for the version on the Chinese page (since the corners of the "home" areas overlap when 5-deep).
:Addressed.  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation Inconsistencies 

message: Besides, when a player uses two of three different sets... I understand the turns correspond to the set, not the player. For instance, if playa A uses reds and whites, and playa B uses greens and blues:
:A moves reds,
:B moves greens,
:would A be allowed to move reds again or must he move whites first? --Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Another good question.  I always played 1-2-3-1-2-3.  However, you can change the rule as long as both players agree.  Your alternative allows for a more flexible game, and it will accelerate the game because the best moves will be picked first regardless of which color.  Along the same thought, your suggestion can be modified further to let the player mix all his pieces.  i.e. instead of moving 3 sets of 10 pieces across, you can play a game of playing 30 pieces across. i.e. any of your own pieces can enter any of the three corners.  In this case, the players  pretend they are semi-color-blind.  The colors are divided into just "yours" and "mine".  Kowloonese 22:58, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Turns for several colours

message: Usually, in the fast paced version, a marble is allowed to enter into an empty corner in the middle of a series of hops, but must hop out again before the move is over. 
I understand there are two variants:
:one in which players are not allowed to finish their turn leaving a marble in the extreme point of a star,
:one in which anyone can finish their turn wherever.
Is this right?--Erri4a 22:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We always played the no-stopping rule.  Because the corners are often other players' destination, it is unfair to leave a piece in there to block their entry.  So the pieces are only allowed in your own starting, ending corner and the common playing field in the middle.  Transit into other corners are important to the game because it enables a lot of long distance catapulting which is the main factor that makes the fast paced version so much fun.  On the other hand, if both players agree, you can always change the rule.  However, the game may not be as fun.  Kowloonese 23:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hop across

message: # There needs to be a it about the game complexity, 
# as well if the setup for 2 players can have the other stones in their corners while the players each only use one corner (opposite each other of course). This wouldn't allow the players to go into the corners that are not their own or their opponents.
# Also, there should be a tag/infobox for the wikibook on chinese checker strategy not a link.  70.111.251.203 14:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions needed 

message: I took the attitude that this isn't really a Chinese game but an international game known in China.  Putting the Chinese name for it at the front of the article suggests that the game originated in China, or is more a Chinese game than a Western one.  If this rearrangement conveys the wrong sense, others may change it.  Mark Foskey 15:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Chinese not at the front 

message: The figures are poor -- strictly, I believe only one figure demonstrates play. It does not seem to correspond to the text. — Xiong熊talk* 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figures 

message: The rule guides to two separate Chinese Checkers sets that I own, both allow for five players. I have also seen how-to videos on C.C. which allow five people to play it. Perhaps some discussion as to variation in this particular area of the rules is warranted. 97.82.251.9 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, 5 players is so weird it could be challenged whether it's WP:OR; we need a source that is WP:RS and WP:V. (A person can't "look up" the rule guides mentioned, to confirm.  But the video could be sourcable if a published work. Can you identify it?  Can you access the content of the video too?)  Including variation for 5 in the article should be based on something.  But what do we have?  p.s. Am curious how to play a fair game with 5.  What do your rule guides say?  Thx. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five players? 

message: When I was in 1st grade, a game called "Chinese Marbles" was particularly popular. A rather ironic name, as C C Violette Elementary School in Garden Grove, California, had a fair amount of Vietnamese students (which is to be expected, owing to refugees from the Vietnam War; see Operation Frequent Wind).
As this game was played at school during recess, it was played outside thus: a small hole was dug into a patch of dry ground in an area free of vegetation (or a coin placed upon the carpet when indoors). Starting from an agreed distance from the hole, players would then take turns trying to get their marbles into the hole to win. The usual method of shooting a marble involved placing an index and ring finger on the ground, and launching the marble with the middle finger, not unlike a slingshot (holding the marble with the opposite hand, pulling back which builds tension in the middle finger, and then releasing to propel the marble forward). Shooting marbles by placing the index knuckle on the ground and curling the thumb behind it with the marble set in front of the thumb nail is also sometimes used, but more often at distances closer to the hole than when starting out.
Various rules were agreed upon and applied before the start of each game. Today (over 28 years later), I have little recollection of much of the game, but I recall something called "rainbows" in which the thumb is placed on the ground, and a bow shaped path is marked out by the fore fingers. The purpose of rainbows, could have been a way to eliminate other marbles, or getting closer to the hole (see golf term, Gimme). Other similar actions exist within the game with different effects, but this is the only one I can recall today.
This is the game we called Chinese Marbles. What I'd like to know is, does this version of marbles exist under a different name, why it was called Chinese Marbles, and how it fits into the main article of Chinese checkers (Chinese Marbles)? I would like to see someone with enough knowledge of the game I've described to create a new article, including the various terms/rules (in similar fashion to the Pinball page). I think the children of today would enjoy playing this game when they can be pulled away from the videogames, and thus would be highly worthwhile to share.<BR>
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different Game, Similar Name 

message: The Diamond game 'variant' from S Korea and Japan is really just an alias for the standard hop-across game, isn't it? From its description, it seems to have exactly the same rules. ~~ Blubro (talk) ~~
Maybe they call it "Diamond" because it's more descriptive, and they don't want to use the word "Chinese" because it's not really Chinese. Maybe that section should be renamed "Different Names" rather than "Versions" 60.242.231.163 (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  After reading the description of Diamond Checkers, I came here to suggest that there was no difference -- or to ask what the difference was. This is two years after the above comment.Kdammers (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamond game variant? 

message: I recognize that the term “Chinese checkers” is a common marketing name for Sternhalma. It’s known to many as this name. I think that’s important insofar as education and finding the page itself. That being said, The name Chinese checkers undeniably has racist origins and I believe in addition to the responsibility to provide accurate information, I think there’s an additional responsibility to discontinue the prominent use of such a name as it will undoubtedly hurt others. I don’t think there is anything real to lose by changing the page name to Sternhalma, as the page itself recognizes and addresses the name “Chinese checkers” making it easily findable with that term. Of course, the page “Chinese checkers” can still exist as a redirect, which would solve for people ending up there. While I presume there will be disagreement on the “popular” or “colloquial” name, and that should be considered when making this decision, I also think it should be considered if this name does harm, both to Chinese people who feel the name is racist and German people who invented the game. We owe it to the English-speaking global population to present the page with the real name of the game, not one that two men decided it should be marketed as. For reference, Othello is a brand name (of a seemingly inconsequential variant so it could be patented), but Reversi is the true name of the game. Both can be mentioned in the page, but Reversi is the title of its page. Louie Mantia (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think "diamond game" is a fine name because "stern" is German and "halma" is Ancient Greek while "diamond game" is already awesome.   There are some online discussion threads that suggest "diamond gsme" is not a registered trademark. I own a diamond game board from the 80's that have the same rule as sternhalma aka Chinese checkers, and it doesn't have King pieces. To suggest "diamond game" is always a different board game altogether is a stronger claim that requires citation IMHO. --Saledomo (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming: Chinese checkers vs. Sternhalma 

message: Though a source Bernardo Johns, Stephanie; The Ethnic Almanac. Doubleday Publishing (1981).  is given, it is a 560-page book and the page number or chapter title is not specified, so it's hard to verify whether the source supports the claim. I searched for "Chinese checkers", "Chinese chequers" and "Sternhalma" in this book with Google Books and could not find relevant results. 
Since the game in Chinese-speaking regions is the same as that in English-speaking countries but differs from the Japanese version both in naming and rules, a more solid and concrete source is needed to claim that the Japanese introduced the game to the Chinese. 
I will remove that sentence for now. If someone has a specified verifiable source, please add it back. Betty (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The game was introduced to Chinese-speaking regions mostly by the Japanese? 

message: what happens if a player never gets a marble or 2 out of their starting area causing their opponent unable to get all marbles in? 
Is game over with no winner? 2601:601:9680:F850:599:320A:F117:E34 (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Aw, you're such a spoilsport.  Seriously, since Chinese Checkers is an offshoot of Halma, they have the same winning objective and the same problem you've described. There is already a suggested fix at . Here's another:As the rules of the two-player game stand, a player can keep a man in his yard indefinitely and so prevent its total occupation. An additional rule is suggested: when one player vacates his yard his opponent must vacate his own yard on successive plays, that is, the opponent cannot move a man that is outside his yard until the yard is empty. ()Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalemate 

message: — Assignment last updated by 杰尼尼尼 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ESL Workshop