Talk:Capablanca chess/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gothic and Grand Chess

I think Gothic and Grand Chess are misplaced here. As these chess variant are quite popular, both of them need a separate article. Even if they will be stub-articles initially, I expect them to grow. For example, German version of Wikipeia has a lengthy article on Gothic Chess. Any objections if I do this? Andreas Kaufmann 06:30, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As nobody objected, I moved Grand Chess and Gothic Chess to separate articles. Andreas Kaufmann 15:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this is a good idea to do. Samboy 01:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What happened to those articles? As of late 2021, Gothic Chess redirects to Capablanca Chess. 62.216.5.216 (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Well how about Bird's chess? Shouldn't it get its own page? It's almost like Gothic.

Octogenarian 1928 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Popularity

Has this game reached any popularity? Are there tournaments? Any informed opinions on how gameplay differs from normal chess? --Apoc2400 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been no tournaments for Capablanca Chess, per se, but there have been tournaments that include Capablanca chess. For example, The Chessvariants.org current tournament includes Capablanca Random chess. Just to clarify 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In the opening paragraph of the article, a Capablanca chess variant is defined as being played upon either a 10x10 or 10x8 board. If Energizer Chess, an 8x8 board game, is to be included, then the definition needs to be changed. Should we presumptuously change the definition? Otherwise, it should be excluded. -AceVentura

As the author of Energizer Chess, I think I shouldn't be meddling in to modify this page. However, since the sub-section is called "Variants inspired by Capablanca Chess", and Energizer is very much so, I don't see why it doesn't belong. In an unrelated note, also games like Capablanca Shatranj (see the chess variants pages might belong into this list. --Sibahi 14:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Capablanca tried only 8x10 and 10x10 boards, so the introduction is correct. However, "Variants inspired by Capablanca Chess" can also have different sizes, this is not a criteria whether include them or not. Andreas Kaufmann 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A Place For Games Related To Capa

The games played upon 10x10 and 8x8 boards cannot be Capa variants proper (like all of the others). [See the first sentence of the article.] So, they do not belong in the "predate" or "postdate" sections. However, related games such as Grand chess and Energizer Chess could go appropriately into a new section of this page entitled "Variants Related To Capablanca Chess" or some such. Also, a new page could be created for Energizer Chess if it is considered sufficiently noteworthy. Please take a responsible, constructive course of action because GC & EC are unacceptable to me in the "postdate" section. --InfoCheck

I renamed the section to Variants inspired by Capablanca chess. Now it is fine to have Grand chess and Energizer chess there. Andreas Kaufmann 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not about "inspiration". This is about dates- whether or not a variant predates or postdates Capablanca Chess. The original section title was poor. It had no sense of balance with the title of the "predate" section. [I hope you don't change it, also.] So, I improved it. Having Grand chess and Energizer Chess in this section garbles it up from the viewpoint of clarity of classification.

If I invented a game similar to checkers but was somehow "inspired by Capablanca Chess" when I did so, why could not I also rightfully include it within the section title you prefer by this poorly-defined standard? --InfoCheck

The term 'postdate' doesn't make any sense for me. For example, Chess960 also "postdates" Capablanca chess. Should we include it here as well? And yes, if you invent a checker game, somehow related to Capablanca chess, it should be refered to from this article as well. Andreas Kaufmann 06:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andreas Kaufmann. The term "inspired by" makes more sense for the reader than "postdate", since the point of the section is to refer to other games in the Capablanca family. Most of these are considered to be improvements by their inventor over the original Capablanca Chess game. Besides, both Grand Chess and Energizer Chess postdate Capablanca Chess. (I have refrained from making modifications to that section since I am referred to as the inventor of Energizer.) --Sibahi 11:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, what do you folks think of the new section? Note that it was not possible to give a graphic representation for Grand chess and Energizer Chess on this page, comparable to that given the other proper, 10x8 variants, without cluttering-up the "postdate" section until this new section was created.

Sure, it is more work to restructure the article properly but this accommodates two significant games related to Capablanca Chess that do not fit neatly into any other categories. Of course, everyone is welcome to improve this greatly- just please don't revert this article to its previous, primitive state and destroy all of my good work. --InfoCheck

Seirawan chess

Thanks Sibahi for finding information about Seirawan chess! I think this is a major event in chess variant world. The last time when a chess grandmaster introduced a new chess variant was in 1996 (Chess960 by Fisher). Andreas Kaufmann 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to continue to add on variants of varying dimension (10x10, and 8x8) and somehow try to retro-fit an explanation that it is "derived from" Capablanca.

1. There were no citations for these claims.

2. If the board size is not the same, it really is not a modification of a game specificially designed for an 80 square board.

3. While it is notable that a GM invented a variant, it does not "automatically follow" that it is linked to this particular page.

GothicChessInventor 23:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Capablanca Chess refers to a family of variants that include the Chancellor and the Archbishop. And, as you should know, Capablanca didn't specifically design his game for the 8x10 board, but also experimented with a 10x10 board. Yasser Sierawan, incidentally, does refer to Capablanca in the articles written about his game, and he, as well, considers his game an improvement. --Sibahi 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Stealth chess

I added it not as it is a variant of chess using an 8x10 board, not because it is directly linked to Capablanca chess. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Variants inspired by Capablanca Chess

Have the images changed, or is the diagram to the right of this section simply misleading? A board *full* of (64) pieces? Can't find a decent historical page to see if this has always been the case... 86.147.154.138 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability Of Energizer Chess

I do not question the notability of Grand chess and Seirawan chess which have their own Wikipedia pages and rightly so. However, Energizer Chess was unilaterally introduced onto this page by its inventor Sibahi. It does not have a Wikipedia page of its own nor does it sufficiently merit one. Although it is classified correctly within the "variants which use a different board" section, I doubt that this virtually unknown, new game deserves mention upon this page ... yet. At least, there have been tournaments and exhibitions for Grand chess and Seirawan chess. --BenWillard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• The only source appears to be a wiki, which doesn't meet WP:RS requirements, and the source is not independent of the creator. It should be removed. Quale 20:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If you reviewed the history, I didn't add Energizer Chess. Samboy did. I don't have to say about the matter, because of conflict of interest. but I would just like to add that the Chess Variants Pages is not a wiki. Only the posters may edit their posts (aside from admins, of course.) This response is just for the record, as they say, not because I want to agree or disagree with the edit. --Sibahi 23:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I never looked at who made the original edit because it doesn't matter—Who added it to this article is irrelevant when considering the adequacy of the source. By source I was not referring to the editor who added Engergizer Chess to the article, but rather the external link http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSenergizerchess that the editor used to support the edit. The site www.chessvariants.org may not be a wiki, but didn't you write the page that Samboy used as a reference? Wikis are not the only impermissible sources: most blogs and web forums also don't make the grade. These sorts of sources can be used in wikipedia for some purposes, but they should almost never be used as the sole source, as was the case here. It looks to me like 1) www.chessvariants.org doesn't meet WP:RS for most purposes no matter who adds it to an article, and 2) the particular page cited was not created independently of the inventor of Energizer Chess and so is not an independent source. If either of those points is wrong, feel free to correct the record. Quale 00:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  I wasn't answering you with the first remark. I was merely responding to the claim BenWillard made that I added my game here. As mentioned, I didn't. (Also, please don't change my formatting again.) --Sibahi 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for incorrectly attributing the introduction of Energizer Chess to Sibahi instead of Samboy. The edit history of this page has been quite extensive in recent weeks. So, I based my remark upon (faulty) memory instead of verification. --BenWillard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS and Titles

From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Composition_titles we read that “In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.), every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as defined below).” That in mind, I have, for most Capablanca variants, given the name with all words capitalized (“Gothic Chess”, “Grotesque Chess”, “Ladorean Chess”, etc.) after verifying that the page describing the variant in question is capitalized thusly.

A couple of exceptions:

• While Christian Feeling does call it “Grand Chess” on his web pages, we call it Grand chess here, so I kept the incorrect capitalization.
• The official title for my own Schoolbook chess is “Schoolbook”, so go ahead and call it “Schoolbook chess” if you must (but I probably prefer “Schoolbook Chess”).
• Since “Modern Capablanca Random chess” doesn’t name itself in its description page, I have retained the lower case “c”, even though this does go against Wikipedia’s Manual of Style.

The only reason I left Wiki-semi retirement to fix this is because Embassy chess was a redlink (which I’m about to make a redirect) when these titles were changed to make “chess” lowecase. Samboy (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Samboy:, I would like to get in discussion with you! (I know you are WP semi-retired, but would you please consider?) I'm the editor who changed Embassy Chess → Embassy chess, but believe me it wasn't a "misguided attempt" to do anything other than a frustrated attempt to shoot for consistency after several years now of seeing an inconsistent mess. The deal is the chess variant names are a hodge-podge of sometimes cap'ing "chess", sometimes not, but mostly not. That doesn't make sense a lot of times, and I wasn't for sure on any MOS that really spells out what really is right or wrong. (Do you think the MOS does? E.g. is any chess variant considered a creative work and therefore word "chess" s/b cap'd? That would make a clean way forward to straightening out the messes currently on the WP, even if it means article renames, I'm willing to do that legwork to set it right. But is it right for sure?)

E.g. personally, I tend to favor cap'ing chess on chess variant names where the name is part of the game name. See here where the article I created, Double Chess, was countermanded by a 7-yr experience user who took extra step on the WP to rename it to Double chess. (I didn't contest that change, because it seems the predominant convention on the WP, to keep word "chess" lower-case. And because I knew there is currently an inconsistent mess all over the place on WP too.)

Do you think I was right, that game names that include word "chess" in the identifiable game name, s/ cap "Chess"? But what about for game names that do *not* include word "chess" in the identifiable game name, then if word chess is used in conjunction with the name, it should be lower-case? (In your invented game, the game name is "Schoolbook" and word "chess" is really not part of the identifiable game name. Since the overwhelming pattern on WP now is lower-case in nearly all cases, clearly "Schoolbook chess" would be the preferred WP name, and I presume you think it consistent w/ MOS too since "Schoolbook" is the creative work title, but, you still prefer "Schoolbook Chess" when word "chess" is used in conjunction!)

You see how complex and confusing all of this can be! One way out of this that I think is filled with potholes, is a guideline to cap or not cap according to how the inventor expresses the name. (Strangely, I see several issues that logically flow from that, creating sticky messes. I can ennumerate later perhaps if it is relevant. For example, how significant if the inventor caps "Chess" when refering to his/her game, when in same article the inventor uses "Pawn", "Bishop", etc., when we never cap piece names by already established convention on the WP!?)

Anyway, can you discuss this with me? (We are probably the only two who care on English WP!?!?) I think the discussion really belongs on WT:CHESS though, since it affects all Category:Chess variants chess variant articles. But here or User talk or Email is fine by me too.

Just to show I prefer "Chess" cap'd in the game names, you'll see I created articles Falcon-Hunter Chess, Beirut Chess, Parallel Worlds Chess, Cross Chess, Three-Man Chess, Tri-Chess, Masonic Chess, Triangular Chess, Wolf Chess, Rhombic Chess, Wildebeest Chess, and Millennium 3D Chess. And several variant articles I created do not have "chess" in the game name: Congo (chess variant), Balbo's Game, Apocalypse (chess variant), Stratomic, Rollerball (chess variant), Chesquerque, Chessence, Dragonfly (chess variant), Troy (chess variant), Chad (chess variant), Dragonchess (started from stub), and 2000 A.D. (chess variant). I'd like to start renaming articles, starting with Alice chess → Alice Chess, but again, this crosses grain with the preponderance of WP articles preferring the lower-case, so I'd have to have solid policy or a consensus one would think. (The reason I changed Embassy Chess → Embassy chess in Capablanca chess is due to giving in to the preponderance of convention already on WP, and, there was a great deal of inconsistency in the article, so as you can see it was a frustrated attempt to strive finally for some consistency, in spite of my personal disagreement with what is currently prevalent on the WP.)

I you can discuss, I'd prefer the discuss over at WT:CHESS, so if/when I start renaming articles, there's something to point to re Project (community) discussion & consensus, and not just on this single article Talk. Thanks for your consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. A side issue is Scholar's Mate or Scholar's mate, Fool's Mate or Fool's mate. But that's another can of worms, I won't try and open up! Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sam, if you take a look at Chess variant, you will see that other than the game names that I have added with cap on "Chess", all other game names without exception (or nearly without exception) are lower-case "chess".

Just to show how perverse the topic has potential to be, Hexagonal chess is correct, right, because it is not a work of art but a generic description of a class of variants, yes? Yet, "Glinki's Hexagonal Chess" is really the game name and work creation, but you won't find it that way on WP, only "Glinski's Hexagonal chess" or "Glinski's hexagonal chess". (Which is right?) This is the type of thing too I'd like to clear up, please help, thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess a logical question is whether a board game invention falls under "composition" as described in the MOS: "In the English titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) [...]", I'm not sure it does, and if it does, perhaps it is a good thing if the MOS is updated to reflect game titles specifically!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that as a style issue, "chess" should be capitalized. I decided to check some reference books; The Oxford Companion to Chess does not capitalize it but David Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants does. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, both Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants and The Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants capitalize word "chess" in *all* chess variant game names having the word. (So, why is the WP predominantly using lower-case on "chess" for chess variant names and article names? Are the Pritchard encyclopedias a reasonable basis for undertaking a project to capitalize "chess" in all chess variant names having the word?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Harry Golombek's Encyclopedia of Chess and Edward Brace's "An Illustrated Dictonary of Chess" both captialize "chess". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me give Ihardlythinkso a big thank you for their contributions. In particular, I like the Trishogi, Hexshogi, Masonic Shogi, Space Shogi, Masonic Chess, Cross Chess, Triangular Chess, Tri-Chess, and Three-Man Chess articles. In terms of capitalization, in the end, I really don't care that much how we capitalize the names of variants. I think naming them with a capital in Chess is better and more consistent with WP:MOS, but it could go the other way. I mainly was annoyed that Embassy chess was a redlink (link to non-existent page) more than anything else, but I've already made the redirect. Samboy (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Caps

Either the article should be at "Capablanca Chess" or the article should read "Capablanca chess". User:Ihardlythinkso, do you know what capitalization was used by José Raúl Capablanca? Hyacinth (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hyacinth, there're lots more WP:RSs for Capa Chess, due to its fame & its age, than e.g. for Triangular Chess, a modern & little-known game. RSs specify "Capablanca Chess" predominantly. (This was my next article rename after doing Grand Chess and Alice Chess, which was time-consuming to do, so if you're so inclined to ren to "Capablanca Chess" plz do, I appreciate.) --IHTS (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 27 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Capablanca Chess → Capablanca chess – Per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles on non-trademarked games, and an entire RfC about this very matter: WP:GAMECAPS. The only proper name here is "Capablanca". Yes, we know some chess writers capitalize the whole expression, but they also capitalize everything to do with chess, and that's precisely what the RfC concluded not to do on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This argument doesn't make sense: If you throw out RSs by "chess writers", what remains are writers who are non-experts in the field. (And those s/n be preferred sources.) --IHTS (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • More logic: Grand Chess was specifically invented to improve the game Capablanca Chess. "Grand Chess" is the indisputable correct game name. (Had "Capablanca chess" been the correct game name, then Freeling's game "Grand Chess" w/ have been named "Grand chess" instead. But it wasn't.) --IHTS (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Chess960" is an indisputable corrrct game name. As is an accepted alternate name "Fischer Random Chess (FRC)". It is a non-trademarked game. According to the non-trademarked argument above, the game name s/b "chess960" (or "Fischer random chess"). But that is as wrong as it is absurd. --IHTS (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The name "Fischer Random Chess (FRC)" probably stems from the fact and knowledge of game "Capablanca Chess" as a competing historic attempt to improve on chess by another world champion. (So name "Fischer Random Chess" is probably modelled after name "Capablanca Chess" just as "Grand Chess" was.) --IHTS (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The inventor Freeling specifies "Grand Chess" [1] (as well as do RSs of any merit). Is the game trademarked? Not to my knowledge. According to the trademark argument above the game s/b "Grand chess" or "grand chess". Both are wrong. --IHTS (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Alice Chess is a non-trademarked game. The game name is indisputably "Alice Chess" not "Alice chess" (per RSs of any merit). --IHTS (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If "Capablanca Chess" is wrong, then "Fischer Random Chess (FRC)" is wrong, "Grand Chess" is wrong, and "Alice Chess" is wrong. But they're not. (In logic when you reach a false or absurd conclusion, you back up and examine assumptions, one of them is wrong.) --IHTS (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Milky Way Galaxy is not trademarked. The only proper name here is "Milky Way" (if that!). Yet "Milky Way galaxy" is not correct. Go figure. (Ditto Golden Gate Bridge not "Golden Gate bridge", New York City not "New York city", Boston Marathon not "Boston marathon", Chinese Checkers not "Chinese checkers", and 100 trillion more examples.) --IHTS (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Go is not trademarked, and the game name, like chess, s/b lowercase in mid-sentence, IMO. But Talk:Go (game) decided differently. They capitalize "Go" game name. In the RfC WP:GAMECAPS, I specifically pointed out the OP (user SMcCandlish) to notify that article of the RfC. (Did he? No.) I suggested that if SMcCandlish believed in his arguments re lowercase, he s/ engage the discussion at Talk:Go (game). (Did he? No.) SMcCandlish went on at length at the RfC how the concensus at Talk:Go (game) to capitalize "Go" was dead wrong. Yet SMcCandlish avoided my suggestion to interface with the editors at Talk:Go (game). (What confidence!) So SMcCandlish picks on a less trafficked article like Capablanca Chess, since he finds no significant volume of opposition here, and he knows that. SMcCandlish continually reprimands that these observations and suggestions are "personalizing", but no, they are just logical. The testing of his argument(s) where the testing is illuminative and critical, at Talk:Go (game), he avoids at all costs, giving numerous flimsy excuses why he doesn't engage there, when the screamingly obvious truth is what has been stated, that he w/ rather pick on articles less trafficked where he won't face any significant volume of opposition. SMcCandlish is a human, and faced w/ significant volume of opposition, where does his confidence go? (No pun intended.) He says at the RfC he is unfamiliar w/ he arguments at Talk:Go (game) at all. I doubt that very much. SMcCandlish has already decided that it is "okay" if that group is exceptional. (Why w/ SMcCandlish decide that, if unfamiliar w/ the arguments found there, and just assuming, as SMcCandlish does, that they must be loser arguments? Not buying it!) --IHTS (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you're trying to personalize this. If you have an issue with me, take it to User talk:SMcCandlish like a normal Wikipedian, please.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Go make your case at Talk:Go, you said you're unaware of arguments there, but you also said those arguments are dead wrong. --IHTS (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Capablanca Chess" is the orthography used by sources on chess variants. It's the expected common name. There is another reason that caps are used here. "Capablanca Chess games" are games of Capablanca Chess, "Capablanca chess games" are games of chess played by José Raúl Capablanca. I should note that McCandlish is incorrect when he states that chess authors "capitalize everything to do with chess". McCandlish has no basis for making this outrageous lie since he isn't familiar with any chess literature. Of course he could look at glossary of chess terms and note what is and isn't capitalized there, or look at a chess column like Leonard Barden's column in The Guardian, but that would let facts get in the way of his smear. Quale (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Then please feel free to clean up chess articles, where people from your wikiproject are rampantly over-capitalizing even names of gamepieces, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Capablanca Chess" is consistently capitalized by RS. Quale also makes a good point about "chess games", which could be taken as chess games of the person rather than games of the variant. We do need consistency on this issue, however, as there are examples such as Legan chess and Seirawan chess (named after persons) where chess is lowercase. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above comments and common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archbishop image (huh?)

An archbishop represented by a bishop+king?! (Can anyone explain this because I don't get it. My proposal w/ be no image is better than this puzzling misleading & apparently homemade representation.) --IHTS (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think those are necessarily homemade. There are different Capablanca and other fairy and variant sets sold commercially. I won't put a direct link here but if you look at the chess piece section of houseofstaunton.com there is a selection of them. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Omega Chess is misplaced here

Omega Chess should not be mentioned on this page because it does not use a Rook+Knight and a Bishop+Knight. I remove that game from that page.Cartignac (talk) 18:57, 9 July 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)

Regarding the setup

In fact, Capablanca himself experimented with different setups, and he also considered playing on a 10×10 board before deciding in favour of RNABQKBCNR on an 8×10 board; see the article at The Chess Variant Pages. Double sharp (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Figures

I have some issues with the figures not being properly legended nor "linked" i.e. they do not open in wikimedia.

This one particularly https://i.imgur.com/5uVp8sT.png is - I suppose- meant to be different. As it is - it is completely useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarmotteNZ (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)