Talk:Computer chess

message: I was once bought a book called "How to beat your chess computer" which detailed the horizon effect and how to exploit it against a computer in an entire chapter.  The basic theory is this.  You play a series of moves, which after 8 moves leaves the computer with a significant material advantage, then it's your move again.  You take his queen, because the computer only looked 8 moves ahead.  Obviously, after the following move, it would see the queen threat and compensate, but it's still a significant weakness of type-A chess software.  Is this worthy of addition?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.21.209 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In modern engines it's a non-issue. Quiescence Search is the answer. In addition, any notable engines of today have a far higher depth than 8 (and usually go beyond 16, if you meant 8 "full moves" rather than 8 plies. Nczempin (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Horizon Effect

message: The "Chronology of Computer Chess" lists Deep Thought sharing first place with Tony Miles, and beating several highly ranked players.  One of those players is Ernst Gruenfeld.  According to his Wikipedia page, he died in 1962.
Did he come back from the dead, or is his Wikipedia page wrong?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.35.248 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it was a different Gruenfeld; it's hard to verify given that there are no references. I removed Ernst Gruenfeld; whoever added him can provide a reference to the Gruenfeld that allegedly took part in the tournament.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nczempin (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gruenfeld playing in 1988? 

message: The image :Image:Fritz 8.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Fritz 8.JPG

message: Why is there no mention of this Estonian Grandmaster's loss in an Odd's match against a computer?--ZincBelief (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in Human-computer chess matches. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehlvest 

message: There is a Request for Deletion at Wiktionary for the word/term "computer chess" if you want to participate go here. Green Squares (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiktionary: Computer chess

message: What can we say about computer chess vs. humans? I tried to add
:The top rating ELO ever was that of Garry Kasparov at 2851 while the estimated rating of the 2008 Swedish Chess Computer Association winner — Rybka on an up-to-date PC workstation — was roughly 3200.
and User:IanOsgood  ripped it out with the comment "both incorrect and WP:OR". OK. What can we say about comuputer chess vs. humans. Please look at Computer Chess: The Drosophila of AI and at this diagram where the author, L. Stephen Coles, has pages to say about the direct comarison of humans and computers. What can say in terms of some parameter (like ELO) that the reader can quickly relate to? I am aware that a down-to-the-individual-point comparisons of ELO are not 100.000000% valid among different "pools", which is why my statement uses terms like "estimated" and "roughly" with scores rounded to the nearest 100 points. But that is not good enough for IanOsgod. OK. Then what is good enough?--Spellage (talk)
:From what I read of the history the bit removed by User:IanOsgood is '(implying an ELO rating of perhaps 2400 or better)'. The Garry Kasparov articles say 2851 Elo is the highest, although you might like to say it's the highest so far (as of February 2009) as it maybe improved upon at some point in the future. SunCreator (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The FIDE and SSDF rating pools are not calibrated to each other. By mentioning a rating from FIDE and a rating from SSDF, you are implying that they are comparable which they are not.  As a thought experiment, the SSDF list could just as likely have been calibrated so that the top rating would lie at 2500.  In this case, would you still have found it noteworthy to mention the 2850 FIDE rating and the 2500 SSDF rating?  Until FIDE decides to start allowing computers into FIDE rated events again, there is little you can say about human/computer ratings in a Wikipedia article. --IanOsgood (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  When the SSDF started rating computers the first computer ratings were from games played between computers and human members of the SSDF. All subsequent games only included computer vs computer games. So the SSDF calibration starting point is the same as FIDE. The SSDF ratings are an approximation of the FIDE ratings. So a SSDF 2700 should be near a FIDE 2700. Mschribr (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: There is a another issue that we should try to point out: that now that the "best human chess player in the world" (whomever that is) can be beaten by a machine, one has to wonder if any human will be willing to devote their lives to chess the way the current crop of champions have. Chess has centuries of grand tradition and there is already commentary that the interest in human vs. computer chess has already started to wain, but I have to wonder if human interest in the game will not be diminished in a such a way that few or no human will have the motivation (let alone the talent) to to Kasparov. I am not saying that human will not continue to play each other; but the motivation at being the "best in the world" has lost some of its charm. It would also be nice to inform the reader of:
*What can I download today and play on my typical PC and is there some sort of ELO rating for that software?
*What is that rating for the best open-source and what is that rating for the best closed-source downloads?
*If I am willing to spend more money (say, in the realm of $5000 for commercial software or a better PC), what can I expect in terms of better ELO?--Spellage (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The chess engine article should provide answers to your first two questions. There are several chess engine rating lists available for comparing engine/hardware/time control combinations against each other. (FYI, Wikipedia talk pages are not help forums, though there is a reference desk.) --IanOsgood (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing humans and computers 

message: Should there be a section in the computer chess article about players opposed to playing computers in tournaments? I remember players protesting when computers were permitted to play at a tournament. There was a national tournament in Europe. Some players forfeited their games rather than play a computer. At the same time some top players like Kasparov did not mind playing a computer. Then there are some chess players that want to stop development of computer chess programs. They think computers will take the fun and mystery out of playing chess. People will stop playing chess when computers become too strong. Mschribr (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Luddite or Intelligent Design or whatever. Chess has perhaps lost some of its charm forever because the machines have clearly exceeded all living players. You could argue that the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula has taken the charm out of computing digits of pi because the formula was determined not by formal reasoning but by computer search.(See Quest for pi para begins "However, this derivation is dishonest,..." page 11). I understand why FIDE refuses be the one to rate humans and machines side-by-side. If they do not, then somebody else will and then humans can sniff that "It's not FIDE". Is there an organized effort beyond that to suppress computer chess or is it just a bunch of players each having their own spiritual crisis? If it is the latter, and there is no other supporting documentation/studies on such effects, then anything added to the article would be little more than commentary.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we allow forklifts in weightlifting competitions? Even a modestly powerful forklift can outlift the strongest human. We don't enter cars in track events. If the organizers of tournaments want to include computers in their tournaments, that's their business. However, just as weight lifting or running is a human endeavor, so is playing chess.--RLent (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the forklift or the car is rated near the level of humans then we should let them compete. Probably the first forklift built and the first cars built. Once the machine or computer is proven too strong for the human then no more competitions. Until about 5 years ago computers would not have been too strong for many chess tournaments. Today we have passed that point in chess so no more computers in human tournaments. Instead of a car in track events have robots like Asimo run in track events. Also instead of a car in track events have a computer driven car like the Carnegie Mellon University driverless car Boss in car races. Today Asimo and Boss would both lose. But in 30 years their descendants would win. After they win we ban robots from track events and ban computer driven cars from car races. Mschribr (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

text:  There was an organization. I don’t recall the name. It was something like WOCIT We Oppose Computers In Tournaments. I think they were vocal in 1980s and 1990s. Maybe somebody else can recall the name better than me. They claimed computers cheat and do not play chess. Mschribr (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section On Players Opposed to Computers 

message: I don’t see performance measures discussed for specific programs in the computer chess article. Measures such as positions per second, size of opening book, size of endgame tablebase, ratings and other measures. These measures are not stated for notable chess programs such as rybka 3 , fritz 10, deep blue, belle, chess 4.6, cray blitz and other programs. Then we can see how these measures affect programs and changed over time. Should this be added to chess article? Mschribr (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the chess engine article for specifics like this. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The chess engine article does not give any specifics. It does not give numbers for positions per second, size of opening book or size of endgame tablebase for any particular engine. If it is more appropriate we can discuss this on chess engine talk page. It would be interesting to compare the numbers for Cray blitz that won the Mississipi State Championship to Hitech that won the Pennsylvania State Chess Championship to Junior that scored 50% in the Dortmund tournament et cetera et cetera et cetera. Mschribr (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance Measures of Chess Programs 

message: Here's a recent (February 2010) essay on computer chess by Garry Kasparov. I found it interesting so I figured you might too.  Cheers, —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasparov’s article is interesting. I have respect for Kasparov as a chess player and as a humanitarian. However, he does not understand much about computers. Kasparov says “But there were other goals as well: to develop a program that played chess by thinking like a human, perhaps even by learning the game as a human does.” He does not believe that today’s computers that easily beat world chess champions are intelligent. He does not appreciate the achievement that a computer the size of a mobile phone can beat the world champion. He wants computers to play chess the way humans play chess. However, we do not know how humans play chess. We cannot look inside the mind and see how it works. Now that the computer has surpassed humans in chess ability then what is point in creating a computer to play more like human? So the computer will make human mistakes and lose. He should take comfort in the fact there are games where the humans are superior. There are old games that programmers have put a lot of effort where humans are better such as Shogi and Go. Maybe when computers are superior in Go, in about 30 years, then computers will think like a humans. However, I doubt it. Mschribr (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasparov on computer chess 

message: 128.237.86.18 changed “Pocket Fritz 4’s higher performance comes from being smarter and not from faster computers” to “Pocket Fritz 4’s higher performance comes from having a stronger evaluation function”. The higher performance of Hiarcs in Pocket Fritz 4’s compared to Deep Blue is more than just a stronger evaluation function. There are many improvements to Hiarcs to improve performance. Some of the improvements are pruning and sorting the moves that help Hiarcs pick better moves. To summarize the many improvements we can say Hiarcs is smarter then deep blue. I will revert the changes made by 128.237.86.18. Mschribr (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't reliably say anything about any modern program compared to Deep Blue without it being original research. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, we can compare Deep Blue to modern programs such Pocket Fritz 4. We know in 1997 Deep Blue evaluated 200 million positions per second and achieved a performance rating 2862. We also know in 2009 Pocket Fritz 4 evaluated less than 20 thousand positions per second and achieved a performance rating 2898. Therefore, we can compare Deep Blue to Pocket Fritz 4 with the following statements. Pocket Fritz 4 played 12 years after Deep Blue played. Deep Blue evaluated more positions per second than Pocket Fritz 4 by multiple of 10 thousand. Pocket Fritz 4 achieved a performance rating 36 points higher than Deep Blue. All current programs have many more improvements than just improved evaluation function since 1997. Some of the improvements are pruning and sorting moves. These improvements make current programs such as Pocket Fritz 4 smarter than older programs such deep blue. Mschribr (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Ian is correct.  You can compare whatever you like, but in the text of a wikipedia article you need a reliable source with your conclusions, not just the data you are drawing inferences from.  A wikipedia editor drawing nontrivial inferences = prohibited original research.  I'm not even sure I know what it means to say that one chess program is "smarter" than another.  Quale (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. What about saying, “Pocket Fritz 4’s higher performance comes from having a stronger evaluation function, discarding a larger number of inferior moves and better at deciding which moves to evaluate first”? Mschribr (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What we would need is a reliable source to establish that that's true. Can anybody find one? If not, we can't really include it. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what is the source for the statement “Pocket Fritz 4’s higher performance comes from a stronger evaluation function”? Mschribr (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Remove the majority of it, what is it? Do you agree the statement should be removed now? Mschribr (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When I say "it", I mean the sections on Computers versus humans and Implementation issues, both of which have serious problems with lack of sourcing. But yes, I agree that the queried statement should be removed. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thank you. Mschribr (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiarcs is smarter then deep blue 

message: I want to discuss with you all if we can cooperate to make a sample chess? That may be very simple and goes up to very low depth...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.217.11 (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make the simplest Chess game 

message: Based on what criteria? On what evidence? Most of the lists out there are problematic. 
I will start by marking it, but what I really want to do is delete it or have a new article on rating computer chess programs, both against each other and against humans. Lovingboth (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking, this is much better in the Chess Engines article, which is linked to from here, so I'm deleting it. Lovingboth (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh, I was beaten to it. Thank you Sun Creator. Lovingboth (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, in my opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of top computer programs 

message: This may seem a perverse question, since computer chess programs have defeated grandmasters, but there is a point to it. A 300-pound boxer of negligible skill could probably beat a 100-pound champion, but would not be considered a good boxer on that account.  Do chess computers make brilliant moves?  Do they develop innovations in strategy or tactics?  Or do they just win by brute computational force?109.158.46.125 (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does in fact touch upon this issue in the ending database section. The "tactics" available to machines to win some positions and draw others stem exactly from their superior computational power. So, if by brilliant moves you mean those that human mind can comprehend and encompass - then no, this is exactly what sets machines apart - their complexity is beyond human ability, and so the weight-class analogy is justified to some extent.91.203.168.156 (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they good players? 

message: It seems to me that in these contests it is unfair because the computer CPU does not have to follow the same rules as humans do.  Are humans allowed to carry the data that the CPUs have access to? (68.94.201.73 (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Do CPUs Have to Follow the Same Rules as Humans?

message: This sentence occurs in the section Solving chess: The difficulty in proving the latter lies in the fact that, while the number of board positions that could happen in the course of a chess game is huge (on the order of at least 1043 to 1047), it is hard to rule out with mathematical certainty the possibility that the initial position allows either side to force a mate or a threefold repetition after relatively few moves, in which case the search tree might encompass only a very small subset of the set of possible positions.  
The sentence confounds nodes in the search tree with permutations of pieces on the chess board (i.e. "positions"). The number of nodes in the generalized search tree has been estimated as 10123, vastly larger than the number of positions possible.  That's due to the possibility of chess positions being able to be reached by multiple sequences of moves, including the possibility of a three-fold repetition on any move.  It's not maintainable that there's a possibility of one side or the other being able to force mate or a three-fold repetition after only a *small number* of moves, because either our chess masters or computer analyses would have discovered that exigency by now, if by *small number*, we mean for example, fewer than 20 moves per side (about half an average game).  Half a game is not a *small number* of moves.  The real reason that a "perfect play" game tree is very substantially smaller than the generalized game tree is that a perfect play tree won't contain any moves on the part of the program that fail to maintain the game-theoretic value of the position in which they're played.  I.e, the program won't play (or need to search) any losing move if there are winning or drawing moves available, nor search or play any drawing move if winning moves are available.  In general, moves that maintain the game-theoretic value of the position are a small fraction of the possible moves in any position. (May also be worth noting that the estimate of board permutations includes impossible and illegal positions, like
both kings in check, pawns on the first rank, and demonstrably unreachable positions.)
The existing sentence needs to replaced and expanded, though the sense of it, that we're not going to define a perfect play search
tree anytime soon, remains true.
Sbalfour (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  search tree nodes vs board positions for estimating complexity 

message: IQ125 Template:User Computer Chess (talk) 09:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: If you want it

message: Can a person beat a program if the person has no time controls and can use other programs and can take back as many moves as they want? I came here hoping to find answer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.78.79 (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  takeback 

message: I wasn't around for the original CCRL deletion debate, but it seems to me that Chess engine#Ratings would be a better place to merge this content.  (And while you're at it, merge yet another computer chess rating list article: Chess Engines Grand Tournament.) --IanOsgood (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCRL merge 

message: The history section is a scribble, larded with trivia.  There's no sense of what actually matters, or how events are
related to each other by progressive historical accumulation of knowledge.  Some of the most important events, like
Northwestern Chess in the mid-late 70's, the publication of Glaurung (predecessor of Stockfish) in 2004, and Fruit in
2005, are omitted.  Bullet points are a bad presentation anyway.  This isn't a slide show, it's an encyclopedia article.
I propose moving the current history section here, until it can be rewritten as narrative text.
For that, I propose 7 major historical periods:
*1 Pre-computer age <1950
*2. the selective search age 1950-1975
*3. the full width search era 1975-1980
*4. the chess machine era 1980-1991
*5. the microcomputer era 1980's-1997
*6. the computer supremacy era 1997-
*6a. the mobile device era 2009-
*7. The AI era 2017-
The precomputer age ends with the publication of Shannon's paper in 1949-50.  The selective search era ends with
Northwestern University Chess 4.5 in 1975.  The machine era begins with Belle in 1979.  The Microcomputer era
begins with Fidelity devices in the mid-1980's, possibly earlier.  The computer supremacy era begins with defeat of Garry
Kasparov by Deep(er) Blue in 1997.  The mobile devices era begins in 2009 with Pocket Fritz (Hiarcs 13) running on a smart phone winning a super-grandmaster tournament earning a performance rating of 2900.  The AI era begins with AlphaGo/AlphaZero
in Dec. 2017 decisively defeating the world's best Chess, Go and Shogi programs. Sbalfour (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds interesting, but I've never seen the computer chess eras divided like that. Reference?  I also do not agree with your definition of "trivia"  that you are removing. --IanOsgood (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My division is purely organizational.  If history is to be a large amount of narrative text, it has to be given a topic-by-topic focus ,and broken into readable sections.  So I've proposed such.  If it seems rather arbitrary, how arbitrary is it to divide the history into 6 one-decade periods, i.e. 1950-1960, etc?  It doesn't give a sense of events.  I've been around since the earliest days of computer chess, and I remember it in terms of events.  If I don't know about, or don't remember something mentioned, it's probably not very notable.Sbalfour (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: By decades is a better organization for this in wikipedia.  The article is not to be a personal monograph on computer chess as seen by one individual editor, but rather a compilation of what the best sources say about the subject.  I don't think wikipedia is the best place for highly original organization or interpretation; conservatism is better here on those points.  Along with IanOsgood I also do not agree with your definition of trivia that should be removed. That said, I think the editors doing the work should have a larger say in most of these issues than others who sit on the sidelines and nitpick.  I appreciate that you are making the effort to try to improve the article. Quale (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

text: The timeline is rather large. Maybe split to a separate article? --IanOsgood (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You are thinking along the same line as me.  And maybe another article for Humans versus computers, and yet another for actual programs, rating lists, and computer-computer competitions.  But we're wandering far afield here; a good article on computer chess should have a BRIEF summary of all of these. But I'm now concerned that the entire bulletized history was copied from chess.com, "Computers and chess - A History" .  They omitted a couple of the same events omitted from our list, and have two blunders that are also on our list.  I'd extensively edited the history before I discovered the copyvio.  I'm worried, and considering deleting the whole list.  A bulletized list isn't a good or proper presentation for this kind of information; the major events should be incorporated into a narrative that gives cause-and-effect relationships between events. This article would readily flunk as a college history paper.Sbalfour (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: (Formerly titled Implementation issues).  My first issue is that Wikipedia should not be a how-to manual for implementing a chess program.  The section is at the least overly emphasized by sheer size - it's the largest section in the article.  My second concern is organizational - this info is best moved to Chess engine article, which is about how chess programs work, whereas this article is about computer chess in general.  Most of the info here is a duplicate of info in articles like Board representation, Minimax, Alphabeta, Evaluation function, Quiescence search and others.  And nearly the whole section implicitly assumes that all chess programs use a minimax/evaluation function model, which isn't wholly true today, and certainly hasn't been true throughout the history.  I'd propose condensing it, merging it into existing articles, or splitting it out into its own article.Sbalfour (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  section Computer methods 

message: The blank statement that doubling the processor speed results in an increase of X ELO points in playing strength is bad enough to be outright false.  The statement is taken out of context.  There's actually a complex and instructive relationship between processor speed and knowledge encoded in the evaluation function.  Programs that are already poor in knowledge benefit less than programs with better knowledge.  Programs with low ratings might increase as much as a rating class (200 ELO points) from a doubling in processor speed.  Rather than processor speed, the appropriate measure here is an increase of 1 ply in search depth (a function of processor speed). At ELO 600 (rank beginner), an increase of one ply in search depth might result in a gain of 350 rating points.  At ELO 3450 (Stockfish 10), an increase of 1 ply in search depth might add only a few ELO points to its playing strength.  The performance of a chess program is related to the resources including processor speed available to it; the other resources are data storage for opening book and endgame table bases, memory for the transposition table, and the more important but intangible quantity of knowledge encoded in its evaluation function.
What we really might want to know is, to improve a program's performance, should we spend more money on hardware (like a CPU with more cores), or more effort on the evaluation function?  And the answer is, "it depends".  There are no ready metrics for quantifying the utility or quantity of knowledge in the evaluation function, but for most modern programs, that's the critical factor, not processor speed. Sbalfour (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playing strength versus computer speed 

message: According to the "El Ajedrecista" article, it is an authentic chess playing machine unlike "the Turk". But on this article, it says that "El Ajedrecista" is a hoax. How is it a hoax? --59.19.11.45 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Nice catch. codl (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  El Ajedrecista a hoax? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Computer Xiangqi. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 4#Computer Xiangqi until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Computer Xiangqi" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]