Talk:Martian chess

message: This looks like a good game article to me.  The game is described, rules are explained, and a short, basic strategy paragraph fits well and is encyclopedic.  You should go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Games and participate in the establishment of what a good game article should look like.  Gentgeen 19:11, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Gentgeen, thanks for your kind words. I don't know much about games as a field, just certain games considered individually. I'll keep an eye on the page and put in my two cents if I see something I have an opinion on, and try to follow the guidelines if I write another game article. Tualha 23:37, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: New article

message: Tell me,  how is rewording the Abstract Games review that specifies facts about the win condition and the fact that it isn't a chess variant become an "opinion"? ("rmv opinion from WP's voice"). You have not discuss it or indicated in any way why this is an opinion.  Spshu (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx for your Q. The author of that quote, Kerry Hanscomb, was expressing his own view (that Martian Chess really isn't a 'chess variant'). 1) It's his own view, not a "fact" to put in WP's voice, as you did. 2) His benchmark for what is or is not a chess variant, is outside of WP's benchmark (they really don't have anything to do with each other, WP's inclusivity what constitues 'chess variant' is likely much broader than Handscomb's). So when you write "is not a chess variant" it means not a chess variant according to what WP considers a chess variant, not what Handscomb does. The winning condition isn't 'opinion' it is fact. But whether the winning condition excludes the variant from being called 'chess variant' depends on definition of 'chess variant', and there is no right or wrong about it, only what definition one accepts or chooses to apply. There is nothing in the winning condition of Martian that clearly excludes it from the loose def or characteristics explained in lede at List of chess variants. So, retaining the Handscomb quote retains his view of the game in the article, without misleading readers that there's such a thing as strict def what is a 'chess variant' (which there is not) and that Martian doesn't satisfy. --IHTS (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

text: The way things currently stand, WP's def of 'chess variant' is basically Pritchard's def from The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. Pritchard states that requiring a royal piece (i.e. king) "whose capture ends the game" isn't "wholly satisfactory", and for that reason he doesn't include that requirement in the def for inclusivity in his encyclopedia. Instead he gives as his def "any game that is related to, derived from or inspired by chess". (OK, in Martian, the largest pieces move like chess queens, the mid-size pieces move like chess rooks [but only 1 or 2 squares per time]. So there is some evident "inspiration" that is chess-related. Not to mention the game name "Martian Chess" indicates some inspiration by chess. Plus piece names "queen" and "pawn". So it meets the Pritchard def. Which is WP's current def.) --IHTS (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

text: Discovered the game is covered in Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Varaints and Variant Chess magazine. --IHTS (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract Games quote 

message: Martian chess is described by Edgar Rice Burroughs in his series of novels about the alternate Mars called "Barsoom." This article is nearly worthless because it 1) doesn't mention that and 2) promotes a commercial product. Wastrel Way (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martian chess is over a century old