Talk:Dunsany's chess

message: "except that only the eight black pawns have the option to move forward two spaces on their first move." Is this an exception? I don't think so, in regular chess this can be done. Don't you think so?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.40.6 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In "regular" chess, the white pawns can also do this; the exception here is that it's only the black pawns. GRAPPLE X 19:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: I've reverted any edits which re-add any "Kasparov trivia" due to the only reference barely mentioning the user. The reference is also a forum, which is self published and obviously editable to say whatever you want. If you'd like to keep the trivia, please find a better reference. Thanks. samtar (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Without even mattering if it's reliable or not, there is no encyclopaedic merit in listing the pseudonym of someone who posted the best score in a variant of a variant of a game, and only did so on one website so it can't even be judged as being the "best in the world". It's a pathetically narrow field of achievement. GRAPPLE X 08:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Either you're trolling, or you're a bit of a sad case. Read ALL of what's been discussed above. Unihedro (talk) 07:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The information is not relevant nor encyclopaedic enough to warrant mention. It's not about Dunsany's chess, and it's a ranking based on an increasingly narrow set of specifics that's about as useful as listing pub teams ahead of world class teams in an article on association football. If FIDE had rankings for the best player of Dunsany's chess worldwide, then with a reliable secondary source we could add that—but to have so much focus on a variant of the article's actual subject, and mention someone who is only the best on one website, is a serious breach of WP:UNDUE. That is that. GRAPPLE X 14:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

text: The fact that chess' highest governing body does not see fit to rank this narrow variant is more a reason against it's inclusion than it is for it. I would advise you to actually read policies such as WP:FANCRUFT and WP:UNDUE before insisting on narrow, fringe, unencyclopaedic content, which functions as little more than personal aggrandisement and advertising for a website be included. This guy might well be the best in the world, but he isn't provably so, and even if it were provable, it's in such a narrow field--not chess, not a variant of chess, but a variant of a variant of chess which isn't even the article's subject, that it's just not worth taking the time to mention. GRAPPLE X 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I've been mostly un-involved with this debate since I first removed the trivia, and have kept an eye just to make sure edit wars don't break out. Reading through the above, it is clear to myself that a consensus exists, therefore I'd like to ask  to stop re-adding the content. By all means, add the information to Lichess, where a ranking table/mention of the player would be more appropriate. Thank you. samtar (msg) 08:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Kasparov trivia 

message: Thank you  for the removal of this section - I completely agree it was never really needed. I also think it's helped stop the content dispute which was occurring. samtar (msg) 10:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: At the end of the day, it took up half the article and had nothing to do with the article's subject. I'm not even convinced "horde chess" in general even merits the space it's given at the minute either but at least there's some semblance of sourcing to it. GRAPPLE X 14:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this removal. Horde chess only came to prominence because, it is played on Lichess, and there is subtle difference in the rules, enough  to form confusion. Lichess was mentioned because of the differences, not to give advertising. Remove the "trivia" sections by all means, but why cause confusion instead? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it is an invention of Lichess, I see no reason to single them out for mention at all. They're but one outlet for something that does not rely on them, and that something is, once again, not actually the subject of the article at hand. GRAPPLE X 15:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the rules where formulated differently for the lichess server, and differ from the horde in the article. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text:  ,  - Perhaps a compromise can be sought? For example, leaving the section out completely here, but adding a "See Also" section (or similar) with a link such as Dunsany's chess on Lichess.org linking to the Lichess wikipedia article. samtar (msg) 15:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would see this as the equivalent of linking to a retailer's website in an article on a product they sell but do not produce, so I would prefer not to. There is no connection proving Lichess is important to Dunsany's chess, only that it hosts a variation of Dunsany's chess which it did not create. GRAPPLE X 15:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I see your point there. samtar (msg) 15:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Putting it on the Lichess page would give undue weight to the variant, as the majority of chess played there is standard chess.  --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Do we still really need to be devoting more space to the "horde" variant than to the actual subject of the article? GRAPPLE X 07:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is actually the case. THere are three variants listed, which each one taking up less space than the last. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you added the content back as a sub-section of the variant. In that case, consider repairing the reflist I previously added that cites about the double-move rule for pawns on the first rank. Unihedro (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Well I removed the Lichess mentions to try to work out a compromise, against accusations of advertising. As it stands it merely says a Horde variant exists, which is 100% correct. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's best , no need to mention Lichess as it already has an article. samtar (msg) 17:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

text: This will work. Lichess's Horde variant now links to this section for user help. Unihedro (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[Lichess]] section 

message: The article says Lord Dunsany invented it in 1942. Did he publish it, or was it spread through oral tradition? What are the oldest sources we have? Jonas kork (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How (when, where) was Dunsany's chess publicized?