Talk:Atomic chess

message: It seems there is another game named "Atomic chess". I discovered it at IYT These are its complete rules. As far as I understand, in the beginning each players chooses its own atomic piece, which remains unknown to his opponent. After move 5 you can choose between doing a normal move or detonating the "atomic piece". The detonation eliminates every single piece in a square beside the one occupied by itself. --alfanje 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This game is called "Beirut chess" in Pritchard's encyclopedia. It was invented by Jim Winslow in 1991. There is a Java applet to try out the game. In this Java implementation you can't choose, which piece carries the bomb. Andreas Kaufmann 21:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another atomic chess?

message: I re-wrote the whole thing. I added a chapter on tactics and theory and stuff. I wanted to go into detail but it would probably need a new page like chess and chess openings does. The tactics part you can re do if you want I'm not all that happy with it. I'm rated 1850 at the moment so I don't know everything but I know enough to know the article before was rubish. Could do with an image or a link to an image showing the way capturing works.Fegor 06:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, its not quite correct about the check rule, I will invert it. As it was originally played with check enforced as far as I know. ICC basically is the variant, no idea why they don't have check enforced though. If you are unhappy with this, we can discuss it further.--Seberg 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I will do a picture late (or ask someone else to do). Deleted stub as well, don't think it is a stub after your last edits ;). About the check rule. Atomic chess was first featured on GICS with check, so unless you find something older, ICC atomic is a variant of this one IMO, however maybe we could mention this earlier and more explicitly.--Seberg 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: as far as I'm concerned I would not want to play any check rule rated but that's a preference. even the most militant check rule types (the most wrong :P  ) have to admit it is played with varying importance across the internet and someone who knows more about how each server enforces it should probably make a whole chapter of the article about it. I was wrong to put "there is no check rule in atomic chess" just as you are wrong to say there is check rule. Tomorrow I will add a link to the section of Tipau's website which talks about this and remove your assertion as a fact that there is a check rule. http://vagonchik.info/sigge/tipau/rules.html. if we can't agree then I'll ask moltenthinker, Peter-patzer or Tipau to come here and tell us whatfor. what's your rating Seberg? also I'll do some more cleaning.Fegor 23:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My rating doesn't matter much anyways, I didn't really change much about the game anyways. But I do know atomic scene very well. Anyways, check rule is historically the correct one, also look at chessvariants, etc. Though I agree that because of the fact that non-check rule was implemented quite a bit later on (well mostly icc) it should be mentioned as well. Fact is, first GICS implemented it with check rule, other servers followed, FICS, MEWIS and probably more with check rule. Only ICC seems to have invented the no check rule later for reasons unknown to me. So I do think that the no-check atomic chess is a variant of this, though I suppose it is big enough to be mentioned equally.--Seberg 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The september re-write + the check rule

message: I will defer to the opinion of the experienced player who loves the word "KILL" so much that he/she applies it oddly to a game involving inanimate objects (pieces).  Carry on!  --BadSanta
:It seems more in the spirit of things. This isn't a cold, calculating strategy game. --Twinxor 20:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Killing"

message: It would be nice to write some pages related to several common main lines, for instance Nf3 f6 e3 e6, Nf3 f6 e4, Nf3 f6 Nc3, including some traps and/or lines that have been refuted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.32.103 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: f8 is next to e8, which is where black's king is. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Yes, but not much atomic. My interest in atomic was back on MEWIS, ICC, and the early days of when it was on FICS/USCL. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening theory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atomic chess. 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/20140525213403/http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/Atomic/rules.pdf to http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/Atomic/rules.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525213513/http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/ to http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If capturing results in an explosion that destroys pieces on all 8 blocks surrounding the capture point, why does the gif show two pawns left adjacent to the Nxg7 capture?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.120.205.101 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Capturing results in an explosion that destroys the capturing piece, the captured piece, and nonpawns on the 8 squares surrounding the capture point. Pawns are unaffected unless directly taking or taken. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated Gif