Talk:Three-dimensional chess

message: When you said that a night can move one cube rookwise then one bishoplike move it is possible for it to move through all 3 planes, ie, it moves one square forward, then one left, then one down. I sugest replacing that with it moves two cubes rookwise, then one cube rookwise in a perpendicular direction, thus meaning the entire move can take place on one plane, unless of course what can be interpreted from what is already written is true (moving through all 3 planes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J4ck 7he Ripp3r (talk • contribs) 07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text "Rooks, bishops, and knights move as they do in Chess in any given plane" makes it clear that you can't do the knight move that would change three coordinates at once, but you're right that the rook-step plus bishop-step description is flawed (and in multiple ways).  I've replaced that text by describing it as a (0,1,2) leap.  I didn't try to explain that further; hopefully the context will make it clear to anybody familiar with standard chess.  76.202.61.191 (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained it further, trying for greater clarity.  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the Knight move is tricky to explain, especially for the layperson, but it should include more references to play/movement through cubes, and also the original/common description as an "L" type move. 02:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Why not change 3 coordinates at once? Ralph Betza originally proposed a (0,1,2)+(1,1,2) leaper for the knight when making his 3D chess. (It was too powerful, but its moving pattern was pretty and was helpful in checkmating.) He also noted that (1,2,2) would be strange and hard to visualise. Double sharp (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Night Move 

message: The Asimov story with 3D chess was actually A Perfect Fit.  Pebble In The Sky had a normal chess game - Asimov deliberately used a real game and gave all the moves in the story because he didn't like typical fictional descriptions of chess games.
Ekaterin 12:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct that Asimov describes a normal chess game in Pebble in the Sky, but just before that, he describes chess variants that have been invented by the time the novel is set. One of these is a three-dimensional game. He doesn't give much information about how it was played, though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouchy Chris (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Asimov story with 3D chess

message: I just wanted to point out that Dragon Chess should be mentioned as well.  Actually when I read the article on Dragon Chess I came here to find out which was first, Star Trek Chess or Dragon Chess.  The concept behind both is nearly identical, by the description of how it looks anyway.
: Star Trek Tri-D Chess 1970s; Dragonchess 1985.  The games are very different.  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dragonchess is its own article & is mentioned under "See also".  Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dragon Chess

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: It doesn't seam to be noteworthy enough to have a whole section written about it, at the very least it should be split into a seperate artical. Its also written like an advertisement. Im going to remove it, if anyone objects feel free to tell me  Googolplexed (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to remove Matrix chess from the artical 

message: The description of the unicorns is incomprehensible, and the layout of Asimov's hyperchess isn't much better (the typo that says "type 3 is like type 3" doesn't help).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.86.70 (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the Asimov versions are not well-defined - but I see the exact paragraphs on other sites. Problem is, to be very symmetrical, with a (lone)king in the center, the board needs to be 7x7 or 9x9, sometimes 11x11 to fit the pieces as described. I've put together an 8 level board using Stratos chess sets, am trying to figure out how to implement as near to these descriptions as possible. Maybe the book (I have on order) will have a more accurate description; it sounds like the Roseate formation is maybe the only one given by Asimov - apparently he made a simple math mistake! (can't fit 9 rows of pieces on an 8x8 board!!) Chesshacker (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bit about "roseate" and "cruciate" formations is just bunk. No such description appears in either the novel or the short story. I have edited that out.Grouchy Chris (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Maybe the unicorn move description is improved now.  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terribly written... 

message: I drew ST Chessboard with google SketchUp. If someone want to improve actual design please contact me I'll send by mail actual skp file. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star trek chessboard 

message: To date, this article has been heavily loaded with irrelevant material by Star Trek and science fiction novel fans/fanatics about imaginary, non-existant, unplayable, incomplete and/or undeveloped 3-D games.  This article must only be devoted to describing real, playable 3-D games that also meet the notability standards of Wikipedia.  -DavidWatersHC  —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi David, does that preclude mention in a section like "In literature" or "In popular culture", etc., that I have seen in other WP articles?  (In other words, would such section in the current article be bad idea?)  Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reality check 

message: Most of the section "other variants" is dedicated to describing, in lengthy detail, a "variant of 3D chess simulated by the 3dchess program for GNU/Linux".  Nowhere in the article is the name of this commercially-manufactured game given.  This current state of affairs is pointless.  If someone cares about this game, then its name needs to be put into this article soon.  Otherwise, its orphaned description should be deleted.  -DavidWatersHC  —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We should remove any specific chess variant that lacks reliable sources, including external links. - MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: If a variant needs a reference, let me know (on my talk page) and I will see if it is in Pritchard's Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants.  If it is there, it has a good source.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm sure these unnamed 'top editors' do not mean to suggest that basic policies such as WP:V should be ignored. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Just because something exists doesn't mean that it is notable enough for inclusion.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: If that is so, I am confused by your mention of 75+ variants and categories, since this article has only a handful of external links. In any case, I will remind you that WP:ELNO tells us that links should not be used to promote sites (point 4), that we should not link to people's personal sites (point 11), and that we should not link to sites about a specific subject (one variant) on an article about a general subject (point 13). You should probably read over Wikipedia:Civility as well. Thanks. -MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in agreement with MrOllie on this.  Some particular games and games sites are notable.  None of particular ones mentioned in the article are.  OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your feedback. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Ohnoitsjamie- I have noticed too that you seem to play a supportive role in conjunction w/ MrOllie, following him in cleanup operations as though working as pair or team.  (For example in this article you reverted edits previously reverted by MrOllie and subsequently undone by article editors.)  Is the apparent teamwork a planned or prescribed thing within Wikipedia?  (For example is there 3RR rule circumvention or other advantage gained when teaming w/ another Editor which facilitates your specialized cleanup operations?)  I'm just asking not accusing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  David said "The context of my remarks concerns only whether or not a game merits an external link, not its own article."  Wikipedia is not a collection of links.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: David - Why wouldn't "Millennium 3D Chess" be notable and merit its own article, if "Dragonchess" is and does?  (In that case the Millennium EL could be a reference in it's own article - what is wrong with that plan?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I moved Millennium 3D Chess to its own article as of today.  Okay, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I didn't delete any external links.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I disagree on all counts. Links to promote a website refers to exactly that. For example, someone linking their own website (which has happened on this page). Not to links to advertisements. 'Personal web pages' refers to single owner, self published sites, not to sites with personal information on them. You don't seem to actually refute point 13, since 'quality' has nothing to do with that criterion. I will say that inclusion as an external link is not a judgement on the quality of any given chess variant. Wikipedia is simply not in the business of being a directory of links. If you want to build a directory of links, you should submit them to a project such as dmoz.org. - MrOllie (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Per WP:ELBURDEN, you should not restore these links without a demonstrated consensus here on the talk page. As to your point, the important bit is 'relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject', the exact rules of any specific variant are not really relevant to an encyclopedic understanding. - MrOllie (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

text: You know, you're right, we could use some additional eyes on this. I have posted on the external links noticeboard so the issue can get some more attention. - MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  other variants 

message: Getting back to the question "Does the introduction to this article adequately describe how most 3D chess variants are played and/or what they have in common? I don't think the intro should describe all of that.  Look at Chess and Poker.  Chess describes one game and the lead gives a brief overview of some rules (but not how the pieces move), while Poker, like 3D chess, describes a family of games and has a lead that only describes what they all have in common. We need to first describe what 3D chess - the general concept - is and only later describe how various implementations are played.
So, what do all 3D chess games have in common?  They are not 2D games. A 2D game is any game where you can only move left, right, forward, backward, or some combination (diagonal of Knight move, for example) and you can describe the start and end of a move with X and Y coordinates.  What every 2D game has in common is that the words "up" and "down" have no meaning. In 3D chess you can arrange the board(s) so that those terms have meaning. Just because you can play on side-by-side boards, that's just a convenience - you can stack the boards and play the same game. So Alice chess is 3D - play it on two stacked boards and "up" and "down" have meaning. Doublewide chess is not 3D - no matter how you arrange the boards a destination square can be descibed by X and Y (no Z) coordinates.
That leaves things like cylinder chess.  Cylinder chess is played on a 2D surface of a 3D object. I would call that 2D - the phrase "move your pawn down" has no meaning. Others might call it 3D - neither description is obviously wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to tell you before I begin to disagree with you, that I agree on your thinking about the difference between 2D Chess and 3D Chess, I improved the initial phrase based on that perception. And I agree that what 3D variants have in common is important, and whether you use the terms "up" or "down" or not is very important, and reminds me of the "Flatland analogy" that Carl Sagan used in Cosmos.  I have to pointedly disagree with you on Alice chess as the theme is about passing through a mirror, not up or down, and the moves to the other board are a representation of going to the same spot in another parallel universe, if you will. I need to give your prespective more thought before I continue. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I think using X,Y, & Z coordinates for the notation of the piece moves is a very notable thing for the into as a thing 3D chess variants have in common and a also pointedly a defining concept. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Another notable for the intro is that because of the extra space with the addition of the third dimension, a lot of variants add more pieces and those extra pieces end up being fairy pieces. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Introduction: what does "3D" actually mean?

message: The chart I talked about...
Chess Cube Moves                                	Face Moves                                      	EdgeMoves                                       	CornerMoves                                     	TotalDirections
Pawn                                            	2                                               	5 a                                             	-                                               	7
Rook                                            	6                                               	-                                               	-                                               	6
Knight                                          	6                                               	12                                              	-                                               	24
Bishop                                          	-                                               	12                                              	                                                	12
Unicorn                                         	-                                               	-                                               	8                                               	8
Queen                                           	6                                               	12                                              	8                                               	26
King                                            	6                                               	12                                              	8                                               	26 b
a Only capture moves. b Only one cube at a time.	a Only capture moves. b Only one cube at a time.	a Only capture moves. b Only one cube at a time.	a Only capture moves. b Only one cube at a time.	a Only capture moves. b Only one cube at a time.
References.                                     	References.                                     	References.                                     	References.                                     	References.
Is this exposition original research, when in fact it represents what is in the Raumschach section??24.79.40.48 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. It represents what is in the Raumschach section. (So, why isn't it located there?! When you locate such a chart in the lede, it implies the chart applies to 3D chess variants generally, which is incorrect.) The chart is misapplied by locating it in the lede – to put it there is misleading. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

text: To answer the question of whether it is original research, we need to know what source you are using for the information. The Raumschach section is part of Wikipedia, and we cannot use Wikipedia as a source. perhaps the source is in the External links section? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied from above, http://www.chessvariants.org/3d.dir/3d5.html , and I would guess since Raumschach is considered a 3D Chess, it's reference should suffice. 24.79.40.48 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Looking at that ref, I do not believe that the above chart is original research. Everything you put in the chart is directly supported by the reference.--Guy Macon (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See comments elsewhere. The chart is specific to Raumschach, and was in fact drawn from the CV.com entry on Raumschach. It has no business being in the lede, as then it is misleading by implying that it applies to 3D chess variants in general (which it does not). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I am going to think about that and also see if anyone else has any opinion. On the one hand, it would make this more like other, related pages, but on the other hand, the page is already cluttered looking. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: the chart

message: IP editor 24.79.40.48 has done a lot of good-faith work improving this article (and was subjected to some rather nasty treatment by a now-blocked user along the way), but -- and this is purely subjective -- I still don't think we have hit the target on an image in the lead that properly represents the idea of three-dimensional chess. Does anyone else have any ideas for the lead that are better than what we have tried recently? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the mean time, I have to say I think the diagrams from regular Chess' article are very illustrative. What are your opinions on them?? 24.79.40.48 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those graphics are duplicative of, and taken from, 2D chess. What purpose do they serve here? (To instruct? To instruct according to your own individual opinion re *how* 3D chess moves should be "visualized"? If those are the answers, then those reasons are in contention with WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. I see no purpose of 2D chess diagrams, other than for WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:ORIGINAL. How do you defend putting 2D chess diagrams in this article, if other than those reasons? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphics 

message: Variants Millennium 3D Chess and Cubic chess have been added to the article by an anon user. Okay. (Millennium was previously a part of this article, per its history; but then broken off into separate article. To return it to this article, is not something I have an issue with really, if someone wants to, and clearly the anon wants to.) 
But what about the order here? Q: Shouldn't the order of variants presented here, be based on ... level of notability? (If not that criteria, then what criteria?) 
Millennium is presented first by the anon. Is it really more notable than Raumschach? (No. Raumschach is "the classic 3D chess" [Pritchard].) So why is Millennium, presented *first*? (What basis? Raumschach should be presented first, based on notability.)
Also, Cubic Chess is presented, above Star Trek Chess. (Again, based on what? Notability? No way. I wrote the article section Cubic Chess, and this variant, is pretty much totally obscure, on dusty bookshelves, before the article section I created for it in the V. R. Parton article. Nobody plays this variant. I'd be shocked if any reader even heard of it before the article section I created. So why would it appear *before* Star Trek 3D Chess, which is tremendously more notable, hands down, by virture of public recognition, exposure, and even popularity re playing?! On what basis is Cubic Chess, appearing *before* Star Trek 3D Chess, in the article? What criteria for order of presentation? The order should be based on notability. [And, since Cubic Chess is so so so obscure, little heard of at all in the real world, I'm wondering *why* it is even appearing at all in this article. It scarcely has notability enough, to justify a section in the V. R. Parton article, let alone be featured prominently here, above Star Trek 3D Chess, which has wide public recognition.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of variant sections  

message: 1907 is the 20th century, not the 19th.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1907 

message: Both Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants have Black's unicorns on Da5 and Dd5. The Classified is quite specific about it: "White RNKNR fronted by 5xP on board A, BUQBU fronted by 5xP on board B, Black diametrically opposite on boards E and D (unicorns on Da5 and Dd5)." What is your source to change this? (If it is Chessvariants.com, the Raumschach graphic on that site is simply in error. Or else show why not, thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black unicorn & bishop initial positions 

message: I don’t don’t know how much ‘off-page’ development it got: but is it worth mentioning Cheop, the three chess game Frank Herbert mentions in Dunehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(novel) … ?
Cuddy2977 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheop 

message: The drawing of the board layout does not match the one visible in the photo from TOS right next to it (the small daugherboards are fixed to different main boards and in different array)... 93.104.79.72 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because the 2×2 attack boards are designed to be movable (to any corner of a 4×4 main board). --IHTS (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board layout / Star Trek chess 

message: Should there be a reference to the game 5D Chess with Multiverse Time Travel on this page? It very much fits the theme, though it does technically have an extra dimension.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3thanguy7 (talk • contribs) 07:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  5d Chess 

message: Is there a specific reason for which the Star Trek connection takes up about half of the main body of the article, but is not even mentioned in the lede? Does anybody object to adding a sentence like "Tridimensional chess has often appeared in science-fiction, the Star Trek franchise in particular contributing to the game's familiarity."? PraiseVivec (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Star Trek mention in the lede? 

message: There is wayyyy too much talk to sift through. I'd note that in the SF tech manual (published circa 1975), it appears that pegs protruding from the larger boards allow attachment of the four-square boards either downward or upward.  I haven't researched it that much but I suppose it is possible that board placement is flexible as to where it is needed - that is, a vacant four-square board can be moved to another position to be used, but that would certainly risk wobbling the entire chess board; I suppose before starting a game, each player could choose where to put one or two boards to suit his planned strategy.
There was a 3-D chess set in the "Batman" episode "The Purr-fect Crime" but it looked unplayable except on the top layer and around the edges of the two lower layers.  There was no room to reach in over the pieces and move them around, let alone see where they were for planning one's move.  To spare this being obvious, Bruce and Dick barely touched the thing before Alfred summoned them to the study for a call from Commissioner Gordon.  The Star Trek version, which originated at the same time in production of the second pilot, was much better designed to be usable, if undefined as to all its rules! GBC (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations...