Talk:Capablanca random chess

1 week full page protection

Please discuss the dispute here on talk. Try to reach an agreement. Durova^Charge! 21:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Symmetryperfect links

Re: consolodation of the two links into one; I realise that the two links direct to two different pages on the site, but I am concerned that linking to two pages on a small, private site has the appearance of being self-promoting, and is really unnecessary. It wouldn't be untoward to link to different parts of the same site in references, but there is really no need to do so in the external links. It will actually add legitimacy to the article and the variant; in my experience, it is always spammy links like to porn sites that try to place themselves in the same external links section multiple times. Anchoress 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! They locked-down this page really fast.

More external links by different contributors regarding CRC are certainly needed. I would not discourage adding links to any important, responsible information from any available source since this article has not yet matured. I would describe the chess variant world as growing fast yet starving for ideas and factual works. Unfortunately, Reinhard Scharnagl, the most prolific source of information on CRC, recently folded his web site.

Derek Nalls, the owner of the referenced web site, is known for generating ideas in the chess variant community but not for generating spam. He does not try to make money. He has obviously done more than one work of relevance to CRC.

He has actually worked with or under Reinhard Scharnagl on refining both of their piece values models thru playtesting. Consequently, there are two links but they are distinctly different. How would you expect the author to combine "a calculation of material piece values for CRC" with "an analysis of CRC position stability" into one document? It is an ad-free web site. There is no damned porn. Your concern is an over-reaction in this case- a fear of someone who is trying to help.

--InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:05:19, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I think you've misunderstood my concern; having several links to the same site diminishes the credibility of both the site and the article because it gives the appearance of self-promotion. I'm not suggesting that anyone's making money off it, nor am I suggesting that there's any porn on the site. Do you get my meaning? Many WP readers, when they see that the same link shows up several times in ELs, immediately assume it's some form of spammy self-promotion. And as for combining, what's wrong with linking to the main chess section on that site and allowing readers to explore it themselves? That's what I did originally, in my reverted edit. Or better yet, let's expand and improve the prose so that the ELs can be used as references; it is perfectly usual to include several separate links to different sections of one site in separate references. Anchoress 23:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I obviously mistook the meaning of some of your remarks. Anyway, I am generally agreeable to almost anything you want to do to build-up the article now that I am convinced it is your sincere intention. I just went thru an edit war, disciplinary action and vote for deletion with a conflict-of-interest pack that wants to destroy every link on Wikipedia that leads to information on the web site of Derek Nalls ... out of spite and/or monopolization. So, I was distrustful of your edit.

There is no way to combine the two sources or link to a page where both sources are listed. Anything less than direct links to individual, listed works is likely to get the reader lost or confused, anyway. His web site just is not structured that way. Different types of information, ideas or game creations are not cross-referenced. Instead, they are placed into completely seperate "worlds" under different sub-domains. They can only be discovered by those who had a legitimate interest that logically lead them there.

I think we should follow the first law of wing walking which is to not let go of one thing until we have a firm hold of something else. In other words, the two external links need to stay until a skilled writer (such as yourself) can blend both of them seamlessly into the prose of the article.

--InfoCheck — Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 20 August 2007

InfoCheck, please in the future add a date and a time to your comments, don't let others do it for you. --Sibahi 07:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern but NO. I do not want to date my comments. It is sufficient to sign my comments only. I do not ask or expect others to date my comments either although I have no objection if/when someone else prefers to. --InfoCheck

Well, you have just been accidentally introduced to one of the disruptive editors at Wikipedia (that I mentioned in passing).

Please note how he:

1. puts all of his comments in boxes to emphasize how much more important he is than everyone else.

2. interrupts the chronological flow of the discussion with his inserted comment.

3. adds no relevant content to the discussion of CRC.

4. insults this editor without provocation while addressing derisively and condescendingly to the best of his ability (albeit limited).

5. arrogantly presumes the rightful authority to conduct police interrogations of other, equal editors to confess their legal names to him which is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

6. misuses the internet (Wikipedia, in this case) as a convenient avenue for stalking which is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines.

--InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:03, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

It is an insult to accuse me of conducting a charade. Someone who is obsessed with knowing who I am is the last person on Earth I would trust unconditionally with that information. My legal name is not something you have a legitimate need for in order to edit on Wikipedia. You are obviously compiling an ENEMY LIST. I do not wish to be on it. So, you might as well drop the subject. --InfoCheck —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:55, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Caps

Either the article should be at "Capablanca Random Chess" or the article should read "Capablanca random chess". Hyacinth (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It s/b "Capablanca Random Chess". --IHTS (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You're helping me, so I hope I am helping you, but "should be" isn't the most convincing reason. Hyacinth (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Could track down sources, Scharnagl's book & online, but am not gonna. ("Capablance Chess" is correct. "Fischer Random Chess" is correct. The idea of randomizing Capablanca Chess was borrowed from Fischer Random Chess, so even logically, "Capablanca Random Chess" is correct. The two games have similar randomization technique, per Scharnagl [I even had direct correspondence w/ him re a polyhedral dice randomization method for his game, but who cares?!].) --IHTS (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Castling with the Chancellor

In starting positions were the chancellor is in the corner. Shouldn't it be technically possible to castle with the chancellor?

Is this even possible in Capablanca 960.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

Sunny3113 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Three-Man Chess which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)