Talk:Baroque chess

message: I learned a variant of Baroque chess under the name of "Hyperchess".  There are a few quite significant differences, though:
* Pawns (called straddlers) can only capture by pinching an enemy piece against another pawn, rather than any friendly piece (so the two pawns "straddle" the piece).  However, they also can capture passively--any enemy piece that moves to a square straddled by two pawns dies instantly, unless its move would capture one of the pawns.
* The withdrawer (called the retractor) can only move one square to capture.  It can still move more than one square away from an enemy piece, but only captures it if it moves just one square.
* The leapers are a single leapers, and are called "springers".
* The coordinator is the upside-down rook, and can capture passively (like the straddlers).  This passive capture means that when the King moves, the coordinator can capture.  Both the coordinator and the king always start on the right-hand side of the board for both players (from that player's perspective).
These changes make captures more difficult, and make pawns less useful for capturing but more useful for blocking.  Also, in Hyperchess, the coordinator and immobilizer are by far the most powerful pieces, the coordinator in particular being far more powerful than it appears to be in Baroque chess.
Is this variant well-known/widespread enough to be worth mentioning?--70.135.19.102 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyperchess? 

message: A bit on the difference between the original, more popular rules and Abbott's later revisions would be nice.  — Gwalla | Talk 03:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The revision that I learned was to encourage attacking play by making pieces less powerful if closer to home.  The movement of the king didn't change.  All other pieces could move only as many squares as the number of the rank they occupied at the start of the move.  For example a pawn on the third rank would still move like a rook, but be limited to three squares of movement.  I tried to play that way and I can see why it didn't catch on, because it's a complication that adds nothing to a complicated game.  I'd put this variant in the article, but I have no reference to verify it.  --Fritzlein 06:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Abbott's Revision

message: This article briefly mentions a variant called Optima without details.  I can't find anything on google or chessvariants.com.  Can anyone verify? Indium (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optima? 

message: One question about the pawns. What if you move a non-pawn so it completes a pinch? Like: Pp.W -> PpW. Is the black pawn captured? This is not obvious from the article.
75.15.224.220 (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about the pawns 

message: Lets assume
a4-a5 : Black Coordinator captures White Pawn(c5)
After that can White King move to c5 as Coordinator cannot make move which makes this field captured again? Or is it captured until Black Coordinator or Black King moves? 
In other words - does "check" in this game is forever (like any piece in Chess where there is simply defined set of captured fields) or is it only per current round?
Can it be like this:
a4-a6: check
c6-c7: King escapes
g3-g4: some unimportant move
c7-c6: King comes back, as no one bother him in this round
I assume some basic version without passive capturing (or is it most popular version?)
:Your diagrams would make more sense if you resisted the urge to depict the Coordinator as a Queen.   Back in 1967 (when I learned the rules to this game), we used a Rook to be a Coordinator.   It would be better if you used a Windmill symbol (with four vanes) instead of a "Castle" symbol.   If you are actually setting these pieces up on a real board, I will leave that to you.   I would suggest a paper cone with "fans" mounted on a toothpick that's been stuck into the side of the cone.     Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the capturing must be active, not passive, i.e. it's only check if the coordinator moved to give it. So 1...Ca6+ 2.Kc7 g4 3.Kc6 would be legal, I think. (Otherwise, the pawn on d2 in the diagram illustrating the coordinator in the article would have been captured passively.) Double sharp (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the capture is only active. Two spaces are targeted the moment the moving Coordinator comes to a stop, but they are not continually targeted thereafter. Binksternet (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about Coordinator capturing 

message: I can find no source for this other than on a piece list of Chess Variants, where no information is given. Verification?
How are the Swapper, Puller, and Pusher represented on a real board? --Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on p. 156 of John Beasley's The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. (Rococo and Maxima are also included.) Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaissance Chess? 

message: Do to a lack of things to do in jail, ultima and other veriants have taken some root in some jail/prison systems. Largly we played with some revisions Albert set forth as the games creator was found to be a more credible source as to how the game should be played than a gaming community that found that the game was just too complicated. It was found that the pincher pawn was the most powerful piece when otherwise without any distance limitations. We played pinchers to skip over only 2 squares and land on the third in what would be its maximum distance move.
:Which jails were they?   Can different variants be attributed to different jails?   Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison and Ultima Chess 

message: , renaming this article to "Baroque Chess" is a mistake. (My commnets at Template talk:Chess variants: "Baroque" is Abbott's orig name for "Ultima". "Baroque Chess" is a variant invented by G. Capellen. "Baroque chess" is a WP anomaly name.) This article w/ be better renamed to  Baroque (chess variant). A possible alternative w/ be Ultima (chess variant). But the latter might call for some discussion. --IHTS (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article shouldn't be at Baroque chess and it shouldn't be at Baroque Chess, then we broke even. It might not be better, but you haven't said it's worse. Hyacinth (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's crazy. (Did you read what I wrote? I wrote your rename to Baroque Chess was a mistake. You've essentially made up a game name yourself, and implemented it. Bad!) --IHTS (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I read what your wrote, but I can't prove it to you. Where did you ask me to move the article back to Baroque chess? Keep in mind that "crazy" sounds both personalizing and insulting. Hyacinth (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

text: What would be worse, the article "Dog" at "Dob" or at "Dod"? Hyacinth (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you're saying or why re "Dog", & your rationale for the rename made no sense to me. You're pushing my limit on patience, I'm telling you three times now your rename was a mistake, thus, *obviously*, you should reverse your change (I'm not going to "ask [you]" to do it beyond explaining why the change was a mistake), rather than bicker with me over various forms of nonsense. --IHTS (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's annoying when people on Wikipedia act like the articles should be improved by using the correct titles, correct spellings, and correct capitalization. Hyacinth (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sticking words in my mouth I never said, meant, implied, or suggested, is another way you're being annoying. What was annoying was when you fought me baselessly after I wrote simply that the rename was a mistake, and why. --IHTS (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game name