Talk:Fairy chess piece

message: Under Nightrider, I found this text:
[the Nightrider is] in algebraic notation [...] represented by the letter N (for this reason, S, from the German Springer, is generally used to indicate the knight in the context of chess problems).
This may or may not be true in Fairy Chess but it seems to imply that S is used for the Knight in standard Chess, which is incorrect.  See http://www.fide.com/official/handbook.asp?level=EE102
Since I am not sure whether the assertion about N for Nightrider is true in Fairy Chess, I am removing it.
-- Ian Jackson
:N for knight is unambiguous in standard chess, (though it used to use "Kt").  However, I've seen evidence of problemists using "S" for knight as far back as the 1930s, as the nightrider ("N") goes back even farther as a concept. WHPratt (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nightrider notation 

message: I created a diagramm for Rose movement exactly as it described in text. It doesn't seems to be correct. Are all possible moves given in text? What is missing? Andreas Kaufmann 22:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of possible moves in the article was not complete. I thought the words "...and so on" made this clear; my apologies if they didn't. I suppose I should have just included the full list in the first place, but I was evidently feeling a bit lazy. I'll add a full list now, and edit the diagram appropriately. It would be nice to draw dotted lines on the diagram to indicate the "circles" along which the rose moves (it would make visualising the piece's movement much easier, I think), though I realise that isn't possible with the template. --Camembert 00:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone could add the circular pattern to the rose piece I would appreciate it. ChrisLawson 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose movements 

message: Unless I misunderstood, the list of pieces (fairy or not), does not follow the labelling conventions dictated above.  For example the Knight is a "(2,1) Leaper" but wouldn´t "(2/1)" denote the same thing and be consistent with the labelling scheme outlined in the article?
: Agreed. I'm not so sure the notation is really relavent to the article, maybe there should be a seperate article for it, or add those sections to the notation article. 71.250.1.198 12:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is important, it is the two-dimensional notation. I have seen many imaginable forms, besides mentioned also "x:y leaper", that I have taken for my pages, but in other chess problem sources (x,y)-leaper is seemingly the most frequent. --Ruziklan 22:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've fixed the notation in the leaper section, which was inconsistent, to be of the form (m,n)-leaper.  The choice is not essential, but (m,n) is standard math notation for a vector, and also (according to Ruziklan) is common in chess literature.  Zaslav (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Notation in Wiki 

message: Why is the pawn in the list? It isn't a "Fairy piece" --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is a Partial list of orthodox and fairy chess pieces and the pawn is an orthodox piece. You might however believe that a list in an article about fairy pieces should not contain regular ones, or what? I have no opinions. Introgressive 13:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pawn? 

message: The kraken and universal leaper can 'teleport' anywhere? Does that mean they can capture whatever they want on any move? How is that useful, as it gives a first-move checkmate?  Radiant_* 12:05, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Only when the pieces are used with certain rule-sets. In orthodox chess, and many other forms of chess, such pieces would, of course, be unusable, but with certain esoteric rule-sets or problem stipulations, they can have a purpose (for example, the problem may be to get a line-piece to a certain square, with the kraken attempting to intervene to stop it). --Camembert
::Sorry, just to clarify, -universal Leapers take by simply landing on any occupied square?Number36 00:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Double sharp (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: A royal kraken or universal leaper is usable in orthodox chess, and indeed the royal universal leaper appears in the Japanese large variants maka dai dai shogi and tai shogi. Another way to make these pieces usable in orthodox chess is to make the king (and no other piece) immune to them. Double sharp (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter appears in Betza's "About the Values of Chess Pieces" series of articles as the Ravager. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal leapers 

message: This article mentioned the "nightrider" as the most popular fairy chess piece, but a separate article linked from this article to the fairy chess piece "grasshopper" described that piece as being the most popular.  I have changed both of these claims so that they now each read "one of the most popular," and suggest that in the future, if somebody decides to claim a piece as being the most popular one in the many variations of chess, that they cite their claim accordingly.  Rudy Breteler (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Most Popular 

message: I added a notation for the spy. I wasn't positive how to describe that it moves one horizontal, then one forward (or vice versa), I mean the forward part, so I wrote (1/1)>. Along with the other possibilities, of course. I also found a small mistake in the pawn's movement; before it said that it could capture backwards. Fixed. If anyone thinks of a better way to describe the spy's movements, be bold. Timeroot (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some more movement notations 

message: I don't see the reason for that "One Source Only" tag. In fact, there is an impressive list of respectable and independent sources, namely the works of Grimbert, Poisson, Ebert et al., Speckmann, and Jelliss. In addition there is the reference to chessvariants.org, a huge collaborative work put togethere by many people. Some of the sources are in french and german, but they are of very good quality.
Therefore I will remove the tag again. Schachfee (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to see what I can do to flag any specific instances of this more clearly, in that case. It appears right now that the article's format (primarily relying on one reference for each section) is the source of the problem here, although it's not obvious how to remedy this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One source only? 

message: I seem to recall a fairy chess piece that worked in the following way.  They were rooks, starting in rook position and moving like rooks.  Except every time one of them moved, you considered the rectangle that they defined the corners of.  If there was an enemy piece at either of the other two corners of that rectangle, it was captured.  It was part of a strange set of fairy chess pieces all of which captured without entering (or remaining) on the target square.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmac31 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The described piece comes from Ultima or Baroque chess by R. Abbot. Schachfee (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators? 

message: *Here, is "xed" pronounced "ksed" or "ekst"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xed pieces 

message: With fairy pieces, I find that several share letters.  For example, the S is used for both the ship from Chaturaji, and the inverted knight.  Is there a possibility of making this uniform?  I can make any required pieces, but most are available.  I've started such a plan on my userspace here, but I'm not sure where to go, or to make it useful for diagram creators. NikNaks talk - gallery - commons 10:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram Uniformity 

message: Hi, what would shogi (and maybe shogi variant) piece moves look like in this notation?  And xiangqi pieces?  OneWeirdDude (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The shogi article and almost all the articles on shogi variants now include Betza notation. The xiangqi article doesn't, but they would be: soldier, fW before crossing the river and frlW after; advisor, F; elephant, nA; horse, nN (using the usual convention that a knight travels orthogonally first, then diagonally); cannon, mRcpR; chariot, R; general, W. Double sharp (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shogi]] pieces 

message: I've seen orthodox chess pieces on the list (ie, bishop) and a "fairy chess" piece that's not even part of chess (ie, Checker).
Would've added Lia's Pawn to the problem if it wasn't for me to realise that houserules could use that piece.
Karjam, AKA KarjamP (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Orthodox chess pieces are useful to include for comparison. The checker could potentially be used in a chess variant, as it also travels on a chessboard, and it's also useful for comparison. Hence I think it is better to keep them in. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Justification for keeping checker: cheskers, i.e. checkers with bishops, kings and camels (as cocks).  BartekChom (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples needs cleanups 

message: Should this not be "Arab versions of chess"?  The isn't religious, is it? JIMp talk·cont 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, "muslim pieces" is the usual term for pieces taken from shatranj. Dickins' A Guide to Fairy Chess refers to them in this way, for example. If we were going to go by ethnicity, shatranj is actually of Persian rather than Arab origin, but those aren't the terms in use. Maybe they should, but the article's purpose is to document what is, not what should be. — Gwalla | Talk 18:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim versions of chess 

message: In the Parlett's movement notation section, there is this note:
:= – orthogonally sideways (used here instead of Parlett's divide symbol.)
But there is no explanation given as to why this variation has been made, when the rest of the section is explicitly documenting Parlett's notation, not building upon it. Anyone care to clarify or change to the "correct" symbol? - IMSoP (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I also wonder.  I was assuming that the modification was standard among people who wants to use the notation in ASCII, but I have no source for that belief.  If someone find one way or another, please update!  71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this page use equals instead of divide? 

message: "This piece is in check when not attacked. If a player's anti-king is in check and unable to move to a square attacked by the opponent, the player loses (checkmate)."
I'm not at all familiar with the variant, but logically, shouldn't this read as follows? (Added a "not.")
WHPratt (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Anti-King 

message: 1. I know that regular chess pieces are in unicode, what about fairy chess pieces?176.250.146.99 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: None currently. The Quivira font contains some variant pieces in its Private Use Area, but like all PUA assignments they are not standardized (in this case, not even a secondary centralized agreement like CSUR or STIX). Currently most fonts with fairy chess pieces are non-Unicode-compliant "dingbat fonts" that assign them to Latin-1 codepoints. I'm actually doing some research toward a potential proposal, but I don't have much to show for it ATM. — Gwalla | Talk 19:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries 

message: I have question how to node in Parlett notation shooting pieces, like for example canon in ko_shogi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko_shogi#Movement_and_capture)
I think maybe simple s will solve this problem. Then pieces will be described as following:
Long bow 弓 yumi 1X.s3*(not ...)
Longbow cavalryman 廣弓騎 kōkyūki  ~o1/2.s3* 
cannon 1X.s5*
European cannon 佛狼機 butsurōki o1x.s7*.s7*
I am not sure...What do you think?
:The XBetza notation used by XBoard will be extended in the upcoming version to interpret an 'i' modifier in a continuation leg of a multi-leg move (defined with the aid of the 'a' modifier), where the interpretation as 'initial' makes no sense, as 'iso'. Describing that a continuation slider leg has to be of equal length as a preceding slider leg. This allows description of slider rifle captures as, say, caibR for capture as Rook and move again as Rook an equal (i) distance back. Leaper rifle captures could of course already be indicated without this, as leaper steps are of unique length (e.g. cabN). H.G.Muller (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parlett notation for shooting pieces 

message: Apparently the bishop is nX, and the aanca is 1+.nX.  Since it is well-established that a 0-square move is not a move (a player in regular chess may not pass), this implies that "any distance" implies any non-zero distance.
But I can't find a definitive source on whether this is true for the aanca.  http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/bent-riders.html says that it's similar to the gryphon (one diagonal, then rook move), which http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/griffon.html says *is* allowed zero orthogonal squares.
Does Parlett notation specifically exclude n=0?  If so, is there an alternative notation that allows it, so the gryphon may be described?
71.41.210.146 (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parlett notation: does n include 0? 

message: At the very least, NW, NF, ND, and NA are not given special names here AFAICS. We have WA (phoenix), WF (mann), WD (wazaba IIRC), FD (kirin), FA (modern elephant), and DA (alibaba IIRC). But do NBW and RNF have names? ("Crown princess" is hard to resist for the first!) Double sharp (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A Thai once told me that the RNF occurs in a Makruk variant named after it ('Ai-Wok'), where it replaces the 'Med' (Ferz Queen) as only difference with regular Makruk. The idea is probably that this super-piece combines the moves of all other Makruk pieces (R, N, K). Sounds like an improvement over the normal Makruk rules, btw! H.G.Muller (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  so are there names for all obvious compounds? 

message: The article currently has about 100 lines of text describing the notation for movement of pieces (Parlett's and Betza's systems). This information is very technical and lengthy, and I think the specifics are not interesting to the average reader just looking to learn generally about fairy chess pieces, or get information about specific pieces.
Therefore I'd like to suggest that the sections (Parlett's movement notation / Additions to Parlett's / Ralph Betza's funny notation / Addition to Betza's)  be moved to near the end of the article. Instead a brief explanation of the purpose of these systems will be added just before the table. This will let readers see the table sooner, which is richer in information and more interesting.
Any comments? If no comments or objections I may do it in a few days.LithiumFlash (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-order of article's sections 

message: "Fairy chess" is a genre of chess problems involving unconventional pieces or rules. These rule changes may or may not be related to chess variants that are actually played. I wouldn't consider a shogi or xiangqi piece without a western chess equivalent to be an example of a "fairy chess piece". MaxBrowne (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fairy chess" and "fairy chess piece" were terms that originally had the precise meaning specified above. These days the terms seem to be used in both the original meaning and also in a broader sense of any unorthodox chess piece. Given that ambiguity, perhaps the main title for this page should be changed to "Unorthodox chess piece" so as to avoid possible misinterpretation. However, this would mean replacing "fairy chess piece" with the slightly more awkward sounding "unorthodox chess piece" throughout the article. DavidJHowe (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually term "fairy piece" is nowadays quite common. Encyclopedia of Chess Problems (by M. Velimirović and K. Valtonen, published 2012 by Šahovski informator) defines it as: Any unorthodox piece. Any piece that does not conform to the FIDE Laws of Chess. Ruziklan (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's very useful.  Do you have a page number for that reference?  We should use it to cite the definition of fairy chess piece.  Quale (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is given as such on page 168 of Encyclopedia of Chess Problems (by M. Velimirović and K. Valtonen, published 2012 by Šahovski informator).  --Ruziklan (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "fairy chess piece" an accurate term? 

message: It is rather hilarious that OhioOakTree persists in removing these two pieces despite them having a lot of prominent use in recent published problems; just this year the nao made three appearances in one informal tourney, of course with the related pao and vao. (And I haven't even bothered to go look in the FIDE albums yet, which many of the composers showcased on that site, including the creator herself IIRC, have been published.) It is also fairly funny that he should keep spamming the same questions on the talk page and failing to understand what a reliable source actually is, which I note from his interactions with Ihardlythinkso on pages such as Talk:Mann (chess) is hardly a recent phenomenon.
The fundamental problem here is that the bulk of fairy chess activity in the problemist tradition, which is where you are likely to see these pieces called "fairy", does not happen online. If you only search online you will likely see nothing but spammy articles about pieces in games that people made up one day when they were bored. Often they do not even bother to check what other people have called the same piece, and often the game itself has practically zero existence and players outside the site, not even having passed the more stringent bars that accompany more print publication. Given the more coordinated and well-sourced nature of the problemist tradition, together with the very name of the article, it is perfectly sensible for the article to focus on that.
An obsession with poorly sourced iconic representations for pieces shows nothing but unfamiliarity with the nature of the subject matter. Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. You are setting a standard that an appearance of a piece in a problem or game alone is justification for a piece to be included in this article. Some editors may argue with this, but the list in this article appears to have had a low standard for inclusion for some time. By the way, when adding comments on this Talk page please be familiar with WP:PERSONAL.—OhioOakTree (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very familiar with that policy, and I apologise if you have interpreted my statements as personal attacks, because they were not intended as such. However, I am hardly setting a standard here, since your reasoning for removing these and other pieces was specifically "no references, and nothing is found when checking for origin or usage". In any case I would think that most problemist pieces deserve a brief mention here, as they would be used practically nowhere else and have no place in any other article. Double sharp (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of dummy and nao 

message: This ought to hold off the wanton deletions for a while. Double sharp (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  index of some published fairy problems 

message: Since my last visit a couple years ago, someone has been permitted to amputate the list of fairy chess pieces to a disturbing degree and in an extremely hodge-podge manner.  A list that includes Berlina Plus Pawns and not normal Plus Pawns? Seriously? I guess I'll have to find information elsewhere, as going through hundreds of old edits to find what I'm looking for is ridiculous. Thanks for the culling!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.149.208 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truncated list 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The table at Fairy chess piece#Leapers and the table at Fairy chess piece#Ralph_Betza's_"funny_notation" both reference a zero. The article does not describe a zero and a piece that cannot move does seem rather pointless. Does such a thing exist? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 12:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it used to be in the table, but was removed due to a lack of sources. It's not actually a piece that can't move, because it can jump onto the space it already is on and pass a turn (indeed, that's the only thing it can do). So it would have some actual worth, say in endgame situations to avoid zugzwang. If you also have pieces that can move other pieces in the same variant (e.g. pushing or pulling), then it also gets some use. But I'm not aware of sources (fairy chess literature seems quite hard to find online). Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks . I could just about see a game version where the king is a zero or one where all of the pawns are zeros and they are placed in turn at the start of a game to form a palisade — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  An immobile royal piece (so actually worse than a zero) has already been called a flag. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero? 

message: I don't know if I'm the only one. I find that Extended Betza's notation section very difficult to understand. I wonder if it is understandable at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazaux (talk • contribs) 20:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: While I generally agree with the spirit of moving things to more detailed articles, the trouble is that the extension is used later (e.g. defining the chu shogi lion). So I think the solution is rather to rewrite the section so that it can be understood, to avoid using undefined notation. The text is rather dense; I think a whole bunch of pictures are needed, really. Maybe I will try if I have some time. Double sharp (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Understood. Maybe the best is to use the text corresponding to Extended Betza's notation which is on the specific page, or at least part of it, as it is much clearer.
=== Betza's notation for n-step orthogonal is Wn not Rn ===
(Comment for a revert here)
Well, I am very influenced by the original publications of Ralph Betza, and he consistently uses Bn, Rn, and Qn, and if I remember right even NN2, thinking of the corresponding pieces as range-restricted riders. But of course, Fn, and Wn are usable as well. When Betza's original notation is considered obsolete in this respect, I think it should be stated in the section on Betza notation. 93.198.243.206 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

text: He used both. Sometimes within the same piece (cf. the N2R4). Or see his page describing the notation, where he writes zF7 for the crooked bishop. Double sharp (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended Betza's notation 

message: (Comment for a revert here)
Well, I am very influenced by the original publications of Ralph Betza, and he consistently uses Bn, Rn, and Qn, and if I remember right even NN2, thinking of the corresponding pieces as range-restricted riders. But of course, Fn, and Wn are usable as well. When Betza's original notation is considered obsolete in this respect, I think it should be stated in the section on Betza notation. 93.198.243.206 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: He used both. Sometimes within the same piece (cf. the N2R4). Or see his page describing the notation, where he writes zF7 for the crooked bishop. Double sharp (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betza's notation for n-step orthogonal is Wn not Rn 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This list has a piece that Wikipedia's table doesn't have:
https://juliasfairies.com/fairy-terms/fairy-classification-project/fairy-classification-tabular/
Georgia guy (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corsair 

message: * 
As noted, the piece in Courier-Spiel is Counsellor/Councillor, not Centaur.Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect centaur 

message: The text says: "The origins of chess are in the 6th century Indian game of chaturanga, which had different rules from the modern game. "
This is a controversial issue but even without entering into details, which are not relevant here, the oldest reference for chaturanga in India is the Harshacharita by Bana around 625. So the 7th. There is no known reference on the 6th at all, not in India nor elsewhere. (Which doesn't forbid to think that chess existed before the first reference, of course).
But again, this is not important here. What would be more important is mention the "revolution" that occurred in the end of the 15th century which introduced modern moves for the Queen and the Bishop, as a variant. And this variant quickly became the orthodox game.
I will modify the text, hoping no vandalism by people "having read" differently here or there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cazaux (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: In the section describing Betza’s notation, its says:
:grasshopper (rider that must land immediately after first piece it encounters, instead of on or before it), pao (rider that can only land behind the first piece it encounters, instead of on or before it)
I’ve thought about this a few minutes now, and I cannot make out a difference. I’m not an expert in chess, but an interested layman. I should be able to understand this; the fact that I can’t means this needs to be improved. — Spezialist(talk) 08:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A pao is not required to land immediately after; it can continue on any number of squares after that piece. See the pao in xiangqi. A grasshopper is restricted to landing on the square right after the jumped piece.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Betza notation] Unclear distinction between grasshopper and pao 

message: There’s a table shown under the section called “Notation.” It shows Betza’s notation for the fundamental leapers. It has links shown as letters that lead to an article about the pieces they refer to. The 0 on the table links to an article about the number 0 itself rather than the piece 0. What’s the point in linking to an article about the number 0 here? 47.152.99.56 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed, that doesn't belong here. removed 208.118.175.250 (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero 

message: Fairy chess piece contains about as much information as Kirin (chess) page, particularly before my addition of descriptions. If it's not a notable piece. It can probably better be represented at the parent article. Perhaps can be WP:BOLDly redirected, but looks like there has been some activity, so potential discussion is probably warranted. Ost (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be merged into Kirin (disambiguation page) instead; I've WP:BOLDly added these entries there. The one point of contention I have is that the Kirin in Taikyoku Shogi moves differently from the Kirins in Chu Shogi and Dai Shogi; do we want to mention this difference either there or on this article? Edderiofer (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a redirect to that alternative target; no unique content to merge. Klbrain (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Kirin (chess)]] into [[Fairy chess piece]] 

message: This article briefly explains how the unicorn piece in 3D chess moves. This is my first time hearing about 3D chess and it's a subject that I found interesting, so I tried to understand it. However, after having read the section talking about the unicorn over and over and over, I still don't get it at all; it makes no sense. Considering how unique the piece is when compared to all the other fairy chess pieces and the fact that it is vital to 3D chess variants like Raumschach (like, it's an actual main piece of the game), I think it deserves its own page, probably more than giraffe and zebra do. If it had its own page, one could actually write a lengthier, proper explanation that'd allow people like me (who are seeing this for the first time) to actually understand it. 186.212.6.138 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really what a split proposal is for. A longer explanation on that piece may well be worth adding to Wikipedia if notable, but a split proposal would only be relevant if that content were already in existence here and were so long as to be impractical to just include here, which is not currently the case. PointlessUsername (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Re the Raumschach unicorn, there are diagrams showing example moves both in this article and at ; and the explanation at the 3D chess article seems clear enough. What seems to be the comprehension issue? --IHTS (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed creation of a Unicorn (chess) page 

message: removed references to "chess on an infinite plane" as they were definite WP:OR by LithiumFlash (now blocked) and removed the huygens row outright as it only appeared in their own variant "trappist-1" ChromaTK (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, on the off chance that anyone wants to dispute this, head over to Talk:Infinite chess to avoid fragmented discussion ChromaTK (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "chess on an infinite plane" 

message: There's a fairly large cultural bias presented in this article due to the presentation of the 'Chinese' chess pieces (and others) as the equivalent of recently invented pieces created by Capablanca and later inventors/theorists. To be clear, Chinese Chess predates European chess, and in spite of the latter's prominence, it could be argued that the European 'queen' is more worthy of being labeled a 'fairy piece' than the Chinese OR Japanese generals, both of which predate it by as much as 500 years.
To rectify this, I would suggest expanding the Background section to more clearly identify which pieces were the earliest divergent elements from chaturanga, establish what is considered the 'standard' of ancient -vs- modern chess variants (makruk barely gets a touch of recognition), and then begin to actually define and discuss the branches/classifications of the pieces. 
This also presents an additional problem, namely that this article is overlapping somewhat with 'all chess variants' and 'all chess variant pieces'. It seems that some effort could be put into creating better divisions within articles, including this one and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_variants
A potentially better division might be: 
'Historical Chess Variants' (which could talk about those individually divergent pieces); 
'Modern Chess Variants' (to discuss things invented based off of Modern Chess, which would be 15th Century Onward, and give space for later Xiangqi, Janggi, and Shogi variants in their own bailiwick elsewhere); 
'Modern Fairy Chess Pieces' (to discuss the pieces which were created for 'New Chess Variants' rather than traditional games with a rich history. 104.128.163.152 (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Bias in Presentation 

message: I believe it'd be helpful to add movement diagrams for each piece, as some of the wording is a bit unclear. Though space may be an issue. I'll try to see if anything can be done for that. Qytz (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams? 

message: The redirect Centaur (chess) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Centaur (chess)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]