Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ihardlythinkso (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 12 March 2013 (→Warning: fix punc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

Userboxes vn-10 This user talk page has been vandalized 10 times. This user tries to do the right thing. If he makes a mistake, please let him know. This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice. This user has nibbled The Donut of DOOM

“He” discussion on WIkiProject Chess

I don’t know if you still care, but in case you do and didn’t know, it looks like the discussion’s moved to WikiProject Chess. Right now it mostly seems to be people trying to explain to Georgia guy why it’s not a problem, and he missing the point. —Frungi (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx, but I won't be participating anymore due to the nastiness involved, including blatant mischaracterizations what I've written, and repeated no-consensus bullying reverts. The attempts to gender-neutralize "A player wins by losing all his pieces" have been amusing -- they've all compromised the text to one degree or another, and some tries have been downright absurd. The changers are nonetheless undisuaded, as though it is somehow *unthinkable* to allow the simplest and best text to stand. (Evidence to me, there is something much more sinister at play than simply "not getting it" -- i.e., an extremist social/political/language-changing POV agenda. So no matter how many good faith explanations ChessPlayerLev offers, he cannot win that debate, it isn't consistent with the POV pushers' agenda and aims.)

We simply *must* find a way to not disclude the egg-bearing side of the human race in the chess variant article rules text, no matter what. (No matter what!) Otherwise ... otherwise ... otherwise ... ... otherwise someone might just pee in their pants! (Too funny.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

p.s. If I'm pissed off from being misrepresented (again) though, I might speak up. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mad pawn chess

What happens to promotion? A mad pawn cannot find itself in a position where it would have no legal moves on an empty board, unlike the FIDE pawn. So am I correct in assuming that promotion is optional? (Might be useful.) Double sharp (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking ... ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Problem is, I don't know what a true arrow pawn is like re promotion (wasn't able to get add'l info thought I might in a copy of World Game Review. Arrow Pawn Chess, Pritcard ECV, taken from Fairy Chess Review (1938): "An arrow pawn moves one or two squares orthogonally in any direction and captures one square diagonally, also in any direction, but does not promote. E.P. capture may occur on any two-step move." George R. Dekle's Three-Man Chess, using arrow pawn, has these rules: "After moving to the 5th rank, the Pawn becomes an Arrow Pawn and may move one square orthogonally in any direction or capture one square diagonally in any direction, with the exception that it cannot reenter its home 1/3 of the board. Upon moving either to the far side of the board or to either enemy's back rank, the Pawn may promote normally."

My guess is Dekle wanted to keep things as much like ortho chess as possible (and so included promotion).

Don't know what about this. (Lack of info on def.) If I were a game inventor, I'd play-test all of the forms until able to draw conclusion which played best (no promotion, promotion optional, promotion mandatory). Since "Mad Pawn Chess" was semi-serious, we co-inventors can do anything. (How about, a mad pawn "self-destructing" upon entering the far rank, destroying everything in a 3x3 area it is at the middle-top of, including any friendly pieces!? Or maybe mad pawns should just stay mad -- like an asylum with all patients escaped, no care facilities or treatment available, in that case the pawns wouldn't understand the benefits of promotion or know what to do if promoted!?) Okay, clearly I'm having too much fun with this (he-he). What do u think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer mad pawns staying mad. We might want to try playtesting this! Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they're already quite powerful. (And once mad, usually no turning back, right? No mad soldier has probably ever been promoted to queen, bishop, or knight!) What about double-steps, Double sharp? ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer them being only legal on each mad pawn's first move (not capture), just like orthodox pawns. Double sharp (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And only straight forward, yes?, not sideways (as in Arrow Pawn Chess). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Allowing sideways movement seems more consistent logically, but I wouldn't mind either alternative. What's the value of a mad pawn, BTW? I would guess about 1.5 to 2 normal pawns, but I could be wrong. Double sharp (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I was gonna guess 2.5! (It's basically subset of a king, with initial double-step, en passant, and immunity from check capabilities. The king is assigned 4 of course.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be sure we're on same page above, I was referring to initial two-step option only. (I.e., first-move two-step option is only orghogonally forward, not sideways?) I could see logic either way. (The logic of extending orthogonal two-step to additional orthogonal directions the pawn has possible for the two-step. And the logic of adding to the ortho pawn, only single-step orthogonal move in any direction, plus single-step diagonal capture in any direction.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Playtest!? My MPs (Military Poice?! No! -- Mad Pawns, or, Mutated Pirhanas) can beat up your MPs "any day of the week". ('Cause those things are *cray-zee*. And they want to eat you alive!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A chess question

Hello Ihardlythinkso.
I noticed you were a chess player and I always wanted to find a chess player to ask this:
On the board the white queen faces (is in a column with) the black queen, the white king faces the black king.
How would the game change if this was reversed, i.e. if the white queen faced the black king, the black queen the white king
(or "vice versa": there's two ways to do this, white king to the right, etc., or white king to the left, etc. but it should lead to similar results).

Yeah, it doesn't matter, it's just a reflection (difference). The difference to play is that (1) openings would all be trashed, and (2) games would probably be more exciting, because, castling short (0-0) is done much more frequently than castling long (0-0-0), because it is quicker to accomplish, and safer (no unprotected pawn). So with both players castling short, they are free to pawn-storm on the opposite wing. (Mutual pawn storms on opposite wings is always exciting play. "Who will get there first?") Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any simulation of such "central reflection" symmetric chess, as opposed to the "horizontal reflection" symmetric chess that it is within the usual rules of chess?

The idea to "central reflect" the royalty has been around a long. long time (more on that later), but am not aware of any testing (but who knows?). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any sequence of permitted moves that could bring the normal "horizontal reflection" starting pattern to this "central reflection" starting pattern?
(I suppose not, since pawns would have to be moved that could never be brought back to the 2nd line, but I thought I'd ask since I'm not au fait of all the more obscure rules)

Your supposition is correct. (Not possible.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note the (naked) chess board is "central reflection" symmetric, not "horizontal reflection" symmetric.

Interesting point. (And I never heard of "naked" board before, only an empty one!) One thing though, that's only true if the squares are checkered. The earliest chessboards were uni-color. Square colors are really meaningless - there just as visual aid to pick out bishop/queen diagonals. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Naked board. Hmm. At first I thought it might've come from French since that's the language I speak most of the time. But no, a Google search confirmed in French it's an empty board too ("échiquier vide") and naked board ("échiquier nu") is just as unknown. I'm worried. I'll have to see a shrink about this. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 14:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is such thing as naked king (only the king left, or sometimes, king stripped of protective pawn cover). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if you, for fun, ever experiment with a friend with this kind of chess for a few games, tell me what happened and what was different about it.
Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 00:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The first variation in Displacement chess#Variations seems to be what I've described above. Transposing black's (instead of white's) king and queen would lead to similar results. Any of this incorrect? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You found it! (That's it.) Here's what the CECV (Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants) has to say (p. 73, §9.2, "The opposing arrays mirror each other diametrally"):

An alternative to vertical mirroring is provided by diametral mirroring, where like men are at opposite ends of an imaginary line through the centre of the board. An example is given by White King and Queen Interchanged, which has been suggested many times (e.g. in the Chess Amateur, December 1916). A correspondence tournament started in 1935 was won by E. Ancsin of Budapest (+10 −1 =0) with P. Keres and H. Muller as joint runners-up (+9 −1 =1) (Fernschach 12/1937, quoted in Chess Notes). Lord Brabazon subsequently suggested that it be officially adopted for a trial period (Chess, April 1944), but readers' letters (17 published) were predictably conservative.

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Pritchard published two of the top games from that 1935 tournament in ECV (Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. 88). It's interesting ... in both games, White castled long (king ending on f1)! Black won both games. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Accidently ran across this on Commons! (More later ...) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference between what you have above and this?

I don't see any, either! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Both are used on this Italian page. According to this page the name of these variants is Wild 1 and Wild 6 resp. but http://www.chessvariants.org uses another terminology so I couldn't find them there

Eagerly waiting for more...

Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 05:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Found them ( I think :-) here

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSdisplacementch

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MPdisplacementch

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MZdisplacementch

You can tell I'm not a chess player since I don't quite understand the difference between these three sets of instructions.

All I could tell is that besides flipping king and queen, castling rules are a bit modified (in all three!)

Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean that a chess variant has "no opening theory"? If I had to venture a guess, I would say that what is meant is that the variant does not need an opening theory distinct from that of regular chess, so that opening theory for regular chess can still be used for the variant as well. But is this correct? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 06:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it means there is not enough experience with the variant (games, results) to form or crystalize any theory. (Theory grows out of practice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Several earlier or regional forms of chess have the royalty reversed (queens were ferzan though, diagonal single-steppers). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Quick mate patterns such as the Fool's Mate or the Scholar's Mate don't seem to be available in this variant, or are they? (I have only looked at this superficially, since I'm talking to a chess player, who'll be able to answer this easily anyway:-) On the other hand can you see, without thinking too hard (I'm not expecting you to come up with an opening theory on the fly of course:-) any quick mate pattern that this variant would give rise to and that wouldn't be available in the regular kind? Or quick mate patterns that would be available in both variants? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 13:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Without diagonal sliders, I don't see either Fool's or Scholar's. Those games are slow-moving. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What are the foolsmates in chaturanga and senterej? (I'm defining "foolsmate" not as something which looks like the FIDE fool's mate, but, following Ralph Betza, as the quickest possible mate in a chess variant.) Double sharp (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know for sure but found this mate in three: 1.g3 Nc6 2.e3 Ne5 3.Ne2 Nf3#. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about the two historical variants shown here (Chaturanga and Senterej) or the variant I asked about in the very beginning? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 20:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh. In the gray diag there's a Fool's (1.d3 c5 2.Bd2 b5 3.Ba5#) and White could play for a Scholar's at c7 with N & B. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A FIDE-like Scholar's with B & Q would be something like 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Bf5 3.Qd2 Nf6 4.Qa5 Nc6 5.Qxc7#. I don't think you can do a Scholar's with N & B, as if Black starts 1.d4 d5 or 1.d4 e5 (both logical adaptations of the sequence of moves in the FIDE Scholar's mate to this variant) he opens a flight square for his king at d7 or e7 which the N & B (I think you mean a set up like Nb5, Bc7) can't reach. Double sharp (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, but not sure the pawn move is required to be a Scholar's. (No real definition other than quick mate on the weakest point.) But I think you're right, Q & B is more apt, since with more chances to occur it would be the most frequent/common. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In the usual setup, the king's bishop and the queen are on the same colour as the enemy king. Changing that makes it harder to have early mating attacks. Another factor to consider is that when the two kings face each other, the open e-file is dangerous to both due to pins and discovered attacks (e.g. the famous trick in Petrov's Defence – 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?! 4.Qe2 Nf6?? 5.Nc6+ and Black loses his queen). If the two kings are not on the same file, this isn't possible. Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of displacement chess, what happens when the knights and bishops are transposed from the ordinary starting position (so that White's bishops are on b1 and g1 and his knights are on c1 and f1)? Betza wrote about the six possible arrangements of the rooks, knights, and bishops in FIDE chess. What's the history of this version? Besides being a separate chess variant in itself, it's also a common mistake in setting up the initial position of FIDE chess. Double sharp (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Found this (Pritchard CECV, p. 71):

Knights and Bishops (suggested by 'R' in a letter to the Illustrated London News, 11 April 1857). Baseline RBNQKNBR. Used in a game between Blackburne and Potter in 1875 (City of London Chess Magazine 1876) and in a tournament in 1879 (Chess Monthly, September 1879). Editorial comment in the latter (Zukertort's?) was hostile: 'We cannot approve of any kind of displacement. The beaten tracks of known openings are, of course, thereby avoided, but this small advantage is purchased at the price of destroying the spirit of the game. However, this particular displacement is vicious in principle ... the first player has such a great advantage that it simply upsets the basis of a fair game'. Regrettably, this great advantage was not revealed. The arrangement was subsequently used in a six-game match between Showalter and Leman, at least one game of which was reproduced in La Stratégie in 1890.

1950s American automobile culture

You're doing great work with that article, keep it up. Malleus Fatuorum 08:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Danke! (Coming from you, it is a great compliment.) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Quality help is always appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I recognise quality when I see it. Sadly I don't see it often enough. Malleus Fatuorum 09:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No writing background (or education!) at all, only interest in the language & enjoy learning by doing.

Malleus, am concerned about future of WP vis-a-vis true comment you made re articles eventually turning to gray goo. The open editing policy was the founder's fresh idea, but it seems it is already outmoded (especially re FAs). What is the solution, and, is anyone listening to same? Thx. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's listening, and grey goo is where we're headed. One very simple thing would be to semi-protect all articles at GA level and beyond. But as I said, nobody with the clout to do it cares. Editors are, after all, easily replaceable units of work. Malleus Fatuorum 10:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've pondered that very same idea, and even asked it of others in my editor reviews. Like most things here, there appears to be no consensus on the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As per Malleus's comment, I'm wondering if that section on unions needs removing. I expect to try to tie it more into auto culture today or remove it. It is a bit off of the main topic. I was going to yesterday, sinuses killing me so I've been distracted. But it needs tying in to be kept, a mistake I should have remedied earlier. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. (It's just target practice for me -- the dysfunctional text. Editing it doesn't mean I've entered evaluative process and determined the text is appropriate for article. That sculpting is best left to the artists. I just like shooting bad text dead, it's fun . It's just practice and a diversion.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. Chris Evert was once asked why she bothered to return back over the net, out-of-bound tennis shots from her opponent. Her answer: "Practice!"

Yet another crazy idea

Diagrams for 3D chess (I used Ralph Betza's 8×8×8 Mixed 3D chess variant, because he'd already made up a sample game for it). Although they do take a lot of space, I think this is a reasonably good 2D representation of a 3D board (if we're not going to use separate images). Double sharp (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Permanent link: . Double sharp (talk) 06:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

8×8×8×8 4D chess, anyone? :-) Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not? How about chess on various 2d/3d/4d manifolds; e.g. in 2d (surfaces): chess on non orientable surfaces (projective plane, Möbius strip, Klein bottle), chess on a cylinder, chess on a sphere, chess on an orientable closed surface of genus n (doughnut with n holes). I don't know which of these surfaces can be covered by squares in a more or less regular way. But who cares. If they're not squares, let them be triangles, or pentagons, or whatever. The whites and the blacks could be arranged in... But but wait! Why only whites and blacks? How about 3 colors (3 players), 4 colors (4 players). Etc. Etc. The sky's the limit :-) Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 19:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You're an excellent source of inspiration. :-)

Gaussian Integer Chess: Each coordinate is now a complex number of the form a + bi, where a and b range from 1 to 8. Thus you can have squares like (4+3i, 7+6i). Other rules not worked out yet. (This is similar to 4D chess, so we'll need some rules to make it behave differently. For example, movement could be different in the imaginary direction.) Double sharp (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-orientable surface chesses are easier to invent (although I think they work better with xiangqi). Just connect the board. The main problem is deciding how the board wraps around at the boundaries for non-orientable variants (orientable boundaries are easy, as in cylindrical chess). Double sharp (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I see the wrapping in Projective Plane Chess:

                          __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 | a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8 | a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1
a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 | a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7 | a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2
a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 | a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 | a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3
a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 | a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 | a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4
a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5 | a4 b4 c4 d4 e4 f4 g4 h4 | a5 b5 c5 d5 e5 f5 g5 h5
a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6 | a3 b3 c3 d3 e3 f3 g3 h3 | a6 b6 c6 d6 e6 f6 g6 h6
a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7 | a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 | a7 b7 c7 d7 e7 f7 g7 h7
a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8 | a1 b1 c1 d1 e1 f1 g1 h1 | a8 b8 c8 d8 e8 f8 g8 h8
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __   ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯ ¯¯   __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
                etc.    | h8 g8 f8 e8 d8 c8 b8 a8 | h1 etc.
                          h7 g7 f7 e7 d7 c7 b7 a7 | h2
                          h6 g6 f6 e6 d6 c6 b6 a6
                          h5 g5 f5 e5 d5 c5 b5 a5
                          h4 g4 f4 e4 d4 c4 b4 a4
                          h3 g3 f3 e3 d3 c3 b3 a3
                          h2 g2 f2 e2 d2 c2 b2 a2
                          h1 g1 f1 e1 d1 c1 b1 a1

Boards without borders are on the opposite side: the square b1 on a board without a border is directly behind the square b1 on a board with a border. Double sharp (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, if a1 is black, then a1* (the square behind a1) must be white. This is so that Bishops don't change colours (a round trip from c1 would be Bc1-d2-e3-f4-g5-h6-a2*-b1*-f8-e7-d6-c5-b4-a3-h7*-g8*-c1).

Unfortunately, using the FIDE setup, the Qd8 checks the Ke1 (Qd8-e7-f6-g5-h4-a6*-b7*-c8*-e1). Betza's "Torus Peace Bump" idea should work – if your move passes backwards across your own baseline (from rank 8 to rank 1 for Black, or rank 1 to rank 8 for White), it cannot be a capture.

Extra credit may be awarded if you play using the pieces from Betza's Punch Chess (rook becomes gryphon (FtR), knight becomes nightrider (NN), bishop becomes aanca (WtB), and queen becomes amazon (RNB)), as the nightrider's movement is now even crazier (NNb1-c3-d5-e7-c1*-b3*-a5*-h2-b8*-c6*-d4*-e2*-c8-b6-a4-h7*-b1) than on a torus. Double sharp (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a completely unrelated chess variant idea, but placed here because I couldn't find a better place: if you can give check (or mate), you must. Checkmate is a loss to the checkmating player. Stalemate is a draw. 1.e4?? loses immediately: 1...f5! (exposing the king to checks) 2.Qh5+ g6! 3.Q:g6+ h:g6 and White has lost his queen. 1.d4 seems to be a reasonable first move, similarly to 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3, but 1.c4?? loses to 1...d5! 2.Qa4+ c6! 3.Q:c6+ b:c6. (Has anyone thought of this before?) Double sharp (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I found two that are close (not exact):

Patzer Chess (Tony Paletta, 1980). A player must check if it is possible to do so but may choose if more than one check is available. A player may win by 'decimation' -- 10 consecutive checks. Hence perpetual check is a win for the player giving it. (Pritchard ECV, 1994, p. 222.)

and:

Simpleton Chess (V. R. Parton, 1961). Checks are mandatory (can choose if more than one possible); captures are mandatory (can choose if more than one possible; checks take precedence); if a player has neither a check or capture possible, he must move a pawn; getting out of check takes top precedence. (Parton Curiouser and Curiouser, 1961, p. 8, paraphrased.)

Xiangqi

Hey there. I finished my copy edit of the article, and hopefully I didn't mess anything up, but if I did, feel free to fix it or let me know. I found it to be a pretty interesting article. I've never played Chinese chess before, but have some skill with the international version, and now I'm looking to buy a xiangqi set. :) This is going on my long list of potential GA targets, but not necessarily soon. If you'd like to collaborate on it sometime in the future, though, I'd be happy to do so. Cheers. —Torchiest _edits 19:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

		Happy Festivus!
		Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. —Torchiest edits 14:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Retired

MF can confirm the email if he wishes. This edit summary suggests at least a change of mind, if not annoyance with it . The facts are easily confirmed I think, either way. Don't worry about it. Best. Leaky Caldron 13:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Leaky. And I've been gaining more (& more) respect for Bwilkins as the months pass, surprising myself. Truely, Merry Xmas. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your intellectual honesty. I appreciate that. Happy New Year to you, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thx, ditto. Happy New Year also! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. I'll be reading your stuff. I assume OK to put any Qs on your Talk!?

Absolutely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Chess in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Chess for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Grandmaster

Hello Ihardlythinkso, I have noticed that you have recently initiated a large-scale cleanup of articles using the word "Grandmaster/grandmaster". I have to admit I'm somewhat confused by that; what do you mean by "cap when title to a name, or referring to the title itself"? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In chess articles generally, both Grandmaster and grandmaster are used, but there's typically no consistency (it is usually just haphazard, and inconsistent). So to bring some consistency, and (cross-fingers) correctness too, I vote leave all the "grandmasters" alone, but cap them under two circumstances: 1) used as title to a name (e.g. "Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura"), or used to specifically refer to the title given by FIDE (e.g. "There are several requirements to obtain the title of Grandmaster."). What do you think? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The same is true for "World Champion", and (gulp!) even "Master". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at FIDE's web site, and capitalisation is more common than a lack thereof; "Latvian Grandmaster", "Grandmaster title", "a Grandmaster and International Master in their ranks" and "FIDE World Champion (2005)" are some of the things that I found there. I suppose dictionaries might be worth consulting on this matter as well. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The example you found, "Grandmaster title", specifically refers to the title. The example "a Grandmaster and International Master in their ranks", the context is a little absent, but if "ranks" is referring to those titles, then same again. The example "Latvian Grandmaster" lacks context (in a sentence), so I can't form opinion about it. In the Bobby Fischer article, you will find all of these: "Soviet grandmaster Yuri Averbakh", "Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman", "Canadian grandmaster Peter Biyiasas", "Filipino grandmaster Eugenio Torre", "American grandmaster Arthur Bisguier", "Serbian grandmaster Ljubomir Ljubojević", and "German grandmaster Karsten Müller". They are all used in precisely the same way (so should be treated the same), and they were mostly all small "g" grandmaster, before I changed the couple or few to match. Without context for the FIDE example "Latvian" I can't tell, but in all the Fischer article examples, I'd vote small "g" is correct, since "grandmaster" is not being used as a salutation title in them, the word grandmaster is modified by the country name, which makes it a descriptive clause in front of the name, and not part of a title-name combination ("Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura").

The ProjChess "should" pinpoint the standard convention for articles, but that is unlikely. Meantime, there is haphazard inconsistency. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Here you go—, and . I've crossed out the third quote, as I did not really like the source. Toccata quarta (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure which exact examples in those articles. In the first link, "... and is a current World Champion among women", I would agree w/ the cap since it refers to the specific title/person holding it. In the third link, "... playing a former World Champion Veselin Topalov" I would agree w/ the cap as it's a title to a name. The second link: "... congratulated the Argentine Grandmaster Miguel Quinteros" is different from my edits, where I used small "g". But! (I used small "g", because that was the majority convention in those articles as far as I could make out. As mentioned, I can see some logic in that convention, for consistent application using small "g". However, for me personally, I don't really care which it is in articles, "Argentine Grandmaster Miguel Quinteros" or "Argentine grandmaster Miguel Quinteros", just as long as there is consistency. There are many times where "grandmaster" is used not in context of any named individuals, and I don't know but assume you agree with that convention. When "Grandmaster" is title to a name, it is for sure cap'd. When there is a country modifier preceding, does it change things? That would have to be decided so it could consistently be applied or not. Again, I found most use already in articles with small "g" when there is a country modifier, and I can see some logic in that. I could also see some logic in cap "G" when there is a country modifier. Perhaps there is a "correct" and "incorrect" here re English capitalization rules, but I don't know what it is. The FIDE examples should not be taken as a bible though, for example, even the sentence with the first example is grammatically flawed: "The Chinese has already clinched the first place in the overall Grand Prix cycle and is a current World Champion among women." (Already demonstrates poor editorship.) Even if there is a FIDE consistent practice, I'm not sure copying and applying that practice to WP articles is the way to go, if it counters what is generally currently done in WP articles, unless there is a ProjChess adoption of the convention. But ProjChess is not apt to adopt any convention any time soon re this, there is little care about capitalization "g" or "G" in different contexts, or "World Champion" or "world champion". There is apathy on anything like this. So there is a lot of haphazard inconsistency in articles. What I have been doing with my edits, is attempt to fit in to current general use, what I can make of it in articles, and apply consistenly, when there is some logic in the use, needed for a guide.) Ok, let me know what you think. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fischer article

I don't think I've ever seen such misuse of the policies WP:NPV and WP:PEA in all the time I've been editing this site. What's the deal with this guy? Toccata quarta (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno for sure, but it's scary, he's got a long list of words on his User, which he seems to think denote POV. (So I'm guessing use of any of those words, triggers & drives his aggressiveness. Imagine. POV at an individual *word* level! Oh boy.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

BCO 2

This one shows "Garry Kasparov" and looks like the one on my desk in front of me. (I didn't take the picture on Amazon.) It's well known that Kasparov prefers "Garry", apparently so that his name has 13 letters which he considers his lucky number. Quale (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Two diff covers for the same book edition! (I wonder how that came about.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Different ISBN, different year, different publisher! World cat lists 12 different issues of BCO 2. Two are used as a reference in the Ponziani Opening. Regards, Sun Creator 02:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I think the books are the same except for publisher and obviously the title page. I consolidated the cites to use the edition cited most often. Quale (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of Betza's chess variants

How are my new article creations? Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I see that. Not too shabby! (OMG! WOTN! Compleekated and kewl! ) I'll probably attack your articles w/ some editorial reefinemonts and stuph licke dat -- thyme permeddling. I'm shure you donut and wonut mind atoll cuz I kan sea uh lot ov improovmunt in the grammer and miner arraignments, and so froth and sew on. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

MPC? Double sharp (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Metropolitan Police Commission". (No wait! ... "Mad Pawn Chess".) ; Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell versus De La Bourdonnais, Match 4 (16), London 1834

Hi Hardly.

Thanks for your all your edits at McDonnell versus De La Bourdonnais, Match 4 (16), London 1834 that I started. They were a great improvement and I shall take them as a model.

New to this. It's satisfying but surprisingly time consuming. I think I might be able to do one or two every now and then as time and inclination permits. I started one on Kasparov versus Topalov at Wijk aan Zee 1999 (the famous combination) in my sandbox but I'm not likely to have the time to complete it for a while. Feel free anyone to take over. ChessMinion (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Minion. You added some great content there, it's a wonderful game, so was a pleasure to do some copyedit on it. Remember, it's quality not quantity, and no time factor either since no one is paying WP volunteers! Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WP chess piece icons

The WP chess piece icons have a disappointingly low number of fairy pieces. (Is it possible to somehow get the Alfaerie pieces onto Misplaced Pages? Is that font copyrighted?) Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find as a font. On the CV comments page, David Howe encourages anyone to put the effort in to making it a font on 9-26-2008. (I could see this working good! Pass the graphics to the WP graphics people to vectorize; it s/ be easy matter to make a font then. No doubt David Howe would approve. But one could write him easily enough at CV.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. It's in bad taste and discouraged to remove your own comments after posted on someones page. Completely removing others comments is against policy. You can strike the comment using the strike wiki coding but we need that for records. ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Does this apply to desks, not just User talk pages? Because User:Thumperward removed inappropriate and snide comments made at me at Villiage Pump Help desk, he did not strike them:

He is an Administrator, so he should know about the striking guideline, yes? So is he allowed to remove and not strike? He didn't receive any warning, like you gave me. (When I complained about his snide remarks, his response was , "What are you complaining about, since didn't you see, I removed those comments??".)

I'd like to understand this. Thx for any help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally yes it does the key difference is that he did a self revert before any responses were made, usually and it's not a written in stone policy once the comment is made it isn't reverted or removed unless it's in bad faith or a personal attack. the only reason I templated you is because you added a section which was then commented on by that person and you removed his commen as well. Once it becomes a discussion we need that for the records. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So is removal then considered equivalent to striking? And does removal before a response is made, exempt someone from the responsibility of making comment(s)? That is what Chris Cunningham conveyed to me then, that he needn't be in a position to defend a comment he removed, because "Hey! I deleted it, didn't I?" That doesn't quite make much sense. If I go around leaving incivil remarks on editors' Talk pages, but remove same before the receivers have chances to respond, I don't think I'd be considered exempt from responsibility for said comments. I think I'd be shown the door, fast! But Chris Cunninham thought it exempted him. (How does that work?)

It's a little confusing too regarding "records", since my removing the entire thread doesn't remove the thread from records, the intact thread exists as a restorable historical version of the page. (The record is there in full context should anyone need access or to restore it.) So I don't really understand "needing it for the records", since no records are destroyed or permanently erased as a result of any delete removal. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This explains it in it's entirety ] also the next section as well WP:REDACT Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Chess Barnstar
		Thank you for your support for expanding the knowledge of Chess and board games for the safety and expansion of Misplaced Pages. Please accept this sign of appreciation and goodwill, for your ways of improving tactics and solving sources for the game of Chess; you deserve it. Keep it up. --GoShow (............................) 21:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank u for the barnstar, GoShow! It's very kind of you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A hyperbolic chess variant

Look at the bottom of User talk:Tamfang#Tri-infinite hyperbolic tilings and let me know what you think. Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I looked, I saw, I got hypnotized, and woke up on a beach somewhere ... Seriously, I need a primer on hyperbolas, I guess. (BTW, what is a hosohedron -- was it a misspelling?) There are several spherical chesses in Pritchard's ECV, one by Nadvorney mapped to 2D, and even a complete game quoted between Paul Yearout and the inventor. (Don't know why "from behind" attacks should ruin a game concept, afterall that's extension of real life war on the sphere called "earth"! Anyway that was a motive for Raumschach going 3D -- attacks from above/planes & below/subs.) This is kinda funny in ECV under Nadvorney: "An infinite move or one which does not change the position is illegal." That makes sense!) Please explain the concept behind hyperbolic boards!? (What is it about? It distorts cells? Is something added?) They are cool-looking, of course, but ... !?! (Thx.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"From behind" attacks are interesting, but using the normal piece set you only have pawns shielding you on one side! Allowing such attacks (e.g. the pieces are not at the back rank) means that you can never actually get your king safe, and while this is certainly an interesting idea, I personally don't really like using it unless you have back-shielding like in Circular Chess. (Perhaps I'm a conservative variantist?!)

It is also interesting to have a very tangled starting position (à la Racing Kings or Torus Peace Bump Chess), where the two sides are too close for comfort. This may work very well on spherical boards, but you may have to subdivide the faces for the simplest polyhedra!

BTW, do we even need the tiling to be regular? A rhombicosidodecahedron might be an interesting idea. Or we could use a Catalan solid. Or, to make a completely crazy game, a uniform star polyhedron! Double sharp (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

For a hosohedron, imagine a featureless sphere. Draw lines along the meridians, making sure that all the lines are equally spaced, cutting the sphere into n equal slices. The slices of the sphere and the faces of the hosohedron are connected the same way.

But I think a bipyramid might be better now. Simply take a hosohedron and make another line across the equator, cutting each slice into two equal slices. An interesting idea might be to take {2,8} (hosohedron with 8 slices) and cut each slice horizontally into eight equal slices, making an 8×8 board connected in a strange way. Unfortunately it seems that this would be identical to vertical Möbius Strip Chess (vertical cylindrical chess with a1 connecting to h8, b1 to g8, c1 to f8, etc.)

Now I'll try to explain the concept behind the hyperbolic board as simply as possible. If you don't understand anything, please tell me!

On a normal board, you have squares, and there are 4 squares to a vertex. A square has 90° angles and so 4 fit snugly round a corner.

On a hyperbolic board, you still have squares (although you can generalise it), but you have more than 4 squares to a vertex – let's say there are q squares at a vertex. q can be any number above 4, but you can't alternate colours if q is odd, so we'll restrict q to be even. Let's let q = 6 for now. (When you understand the rules, you can extend the rules to any even q. The third picture in that link has q = 8.)

There are 6 squares to a vertex, so each square must have 60-degree angles. We can't really show this on a screen as our screens are flat, so we'll need some distortion:

(The squares are really still squares! They just look distorted, but they are square.)

To examine how this board is connected, let's look at a specific square. We'll use the biggest white square, near the middle of the board.

Let's begin with the simplest pieces, and start with the rook. The rook moves orthogonally, and there are still four squares orthogonally adjacent to our squares.

Now let's examine the bishop, which moves diagonally. On the standard chessboard, each square is connected to only one other square at a corner. But now each square is connected to two squares at each corner! The bishop can now choose either path, but once moving, it cannot change its direction. To achieve that, we must add the rule that while moving, it exits a square by the vertex opposite the vertex it entered the square through. Since its paths can still split, it must also keep choosing the same direction every time the path forks at a corner. (For example, if it started by turning left, it must turn left at every corner. If this is confusing, imagine you are the bishop facing towards the corner, and then ask yourself which square you would consider to be on your left. The same applies to the right square, of course.)

The queen must still be a combination of the rook and bishop, and the king must move like the queen, but only one square.

Non-leaping knights usually move orthogonally before diagonally, so we will think of them this way, although you will get the same moves either way. Since you can't really change direction mid-jump, we'll pretend that it casts a short-term flying spell on itself, glides one square orthogonally, and then one square diagonally outwards from its starting position (it cannot go back towards its starting position), where it settles to the ground.

This leaves only the pawn. It must thus move one (two on its first move) square forward (towards the opponent) and capture one square forward diagonally.

Castling and en passant can now be defined straightforwardly. But deciding on a good setup may be harder, as (1) the hyperbolic board has more space than a normal board (the exact amount of extra space varies with q) and (2) in hyperbolic geometry, you can't put squares together to make a bigger square. Could you think of one? :-)

(I will soon add diagrams.) Double sharp (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The diagrams won't show squares that the piece can move to but are too far away to see clearly. Double sharp (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Notice that straight lines now appear as arcs of circles! Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. This still leaves some adjacent squares of the other colour untouched by either the rook or the bishop. Should I give them to the rook, or leave them untouched by any piece? But then the king's move no longer can be described as quickly as in FIDE chess. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:166.82.205.115

Someone came on IRC to ask for the edit to be revdeleted. It was also reposted on a couple of other high visible pages. The reposting IP have been independently blocked as well. And oh, I'm a her. -- KTC (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx for the answer. (And sorry about presuming you were male.) Thanks again for your responsiveness! Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Mkdw 07:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost no presentation stds

I remember those unfortunate edits at QGD. For some reason I didn't revert them. It's a year ago now so I don't remember if maybe there were some edits mixed in that I thought were of some value and I didn't feel like taking the work to disentangle them, or if I was just tired that night. I think it is justified to revert edits like that. Quale (talk) 03:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Try not to take it too seriously. It's easy for me to give this advice, but I have to remember to practice it myself. I don't always succeed, as Talk:List of Internet chess servers shows. I don't really think an extensive amount of chess project standards is really the solution to this issue. My belief is that the formatting choices of the original author or the primary contributors to the page should be respected, and that formatting changes made only because the drive-by tourist prefers his formatting are nearly always inappropriate. These sorts of edits are already barred when they change national variety of English or citation style, and the principal is exactly the same for other worthless edits like the ones here. I don't think editors who insist on making worthless edits would be deterred by Wikiproject chess guidelines. The more present danger is that WT:MOS will someday decide that chess openings must follow MOS rules for capitalization, even though those rules do not have a very complete intersection with reality. This may seem unlikely, but the recent ridiculous flap over capitalization of a movie title is sobering.

The most remarkable experience I had with this personally was several years ago when one member of the chess project decided that References sections should be renamed Footnotes. He argued that either one was equally acceptable, so he was justified in making that change even to well-developed articles to which he had never made any constructive edits. (Or in fact any other edit than changing References to Footnotes.) By his own argument, since either was acceptable then I (or anyone else) would be perfectly justified to revert. Then he would make the change yet again and there would be no way out of an endless revert cycle. The obvious solution chosen by Misplaced Pages is to not make the initial pointless change since the article was fine the way it was originally and worthless edits should be discouraged. In this instance there was nothing to be gained by trying to explain this to that moron (although I tried), but eventually he desisted anyway. If he hadn't I suppose I would probably have ended up getting blocked, as I was really struggling trying to deal with that level of idiocy. Quale (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Battleship salvo

The Salvo rule was repeated more or less verbatim in the "Variants" section; I thought I'd leave it there and pare down the rules to just the basic ones, but feel free to move it around if the Salvo mechanic has enough historical weight that we should mention it in the main rules. --McGeddon (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see that now (in the variants section). No, I think the Salvo rules do belong in the variants section, not the main section. When I opened a section on your Talk, I did a search on "Salvo" and found nothing in the article proper, so I mistakenly thought you eliminated it, sorry. The name "Salvo" was eliminated by this edit, and Salvo is identified only as "a traditional variant". I think the variant should be represented by its name, rather than that vague generic reference. (If you do that I'm happy.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've added an explanation of two different ways in which the salvo results can be announced; I'm only working from a single source here, so you may want to take a look if it differs from how you play it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thx. I made italic to be consistent w/ earlier. It's not how I play of course but what's in sources ... I have the MB 1990 Salvo rules, but your source is better than mine. Good job. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, is it listed as a variant in modern edition of Battleship? I assumed it was only referring to the 1931 edition, which I was struggling to find completely clear rules for. I'll see what I can dig up. --McGeddon (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Milton Bradley 1990 rules are pretty simplistic, I couldn't find the link where I downloaded the pdf from, so have copied below, here's all they say:

How To Play Salvo

The SALVO variation of this game is recommended for more experienced players who have become familiar with the basic game. Use the same rules as in the basic game of Battleship except:

• On your turn, call out 5 different shots. As you call out each shot, mark it with a white peg in your target grid. At the end of your salvo of 5 shots, your opponent announces which shots were hits and which ships were hit.
• If any of your shots are hits, change their corresponding white pegs to red pegs on your target grid. Your opponent places red pegs in the holes of the ships that were hit.

  Example:
  You call: "E-3, F-3, G-3, H-3, I-3."
  Alex answers: "F-3 is a hit on destroyer. H-3 is a hit on cruiser."

• Whenever any one of your ships has been sunk, you lose one shot when you fire your next salvo. The more ships sunk, the less shots you get.

  For example, if 1 of Alex's 5 ships has been sunk, he must call out only 4 shots on his next turn, instead of 5.

  For a more challenging SALVO game, don't disclose which of your ships have been hit.

Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being such a stoic believer in process and procedure. Your love for all things bureaucratic is inspirational. Keep up the great work! Ha ha. Stalwart111 04:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Z147

I appreciate the good spirit (& humour) clearly intended. I believe in things that work. (WP is too dysfunctional, that when it works, it is accidental & fortunate. Mostly however, the Pedia does not work. Proof is loss from many content creators, including loss of some of the best, e.g. Malleus, who was even labelled a "non-Wikipedian" by a member of the bereau, which magically turned a Request for Clarification request into a motion to sanction/ban. If I can be considered to be a non-Wikipedian --- it would be the greatest ongoing compliment I can imagine.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. "Editor Retention project" ... what a joke. (What did they learn, or do different, after the loss of Malleus? Nothing. They are proud to just pontificate there, as though they somehow benefit the Pedia. Talk-talk-talk. It's one thing to think highly of oneself, and it's quite another to have rational reason to do so. Take a look at some of their content contribution histories. The highschool hallways are filled with civility monitors, and that's all that will be left with the current flight path ... except a lot of gray goo too.) /* End of Rant */ Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The occasional rant is worthwhile. The current ArbCom business is a giant cluster-f*ck that helps no-one, improves WP not at all and just generally makes everyone involved look bad. I wonder if they realise how disappointed usually non-vocal editors (like me) really are? I avoid the "drama" as much as humanly possible and am usually content to watch from the sidelines. I will for this one too (probably) but I can't help feeling like I'm back at high school watching the idiots chant, fight, fight, fight. *Sigh* Stalwart111 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But your User page says you enjoy contributing at ANI. (I haven't looked at any of your contributions there, so I don't know. But note this, by User:SandyGeorgia 31 Jan 2012: "The fundamental problem here is that AN/I is dominated by the irresponsible, the responsible generally won't go anywhere near it, and non-admins most clearly don't have the same rights there to speak as admins do. Admins can come in and lob charges at regular editors with narry a diff, but if a non-admin challenges them, they are ignored or chastized.") If you like to avoid drama you should boycott that place. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A contradiction of sorts, though I'm not sure I've said I "enjoy" it. By "drama", I mean the "politics" of WP; Wikipediocracy, IRC, cabals, ArbCom rubbish (though I voted; actually prompted by the Malleus business). I just see WP:ANI as a bureaucracy-fest. Useful sometimes, often not, but really something not to get all that excited about. ANI is an issue, but it's not the issue. Stalwart111 06:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "bureaucracy-fest" imply structure, order? (It's a chaotic cesspool there. First person to announce "BOOMERANG!" wins. An abusive, dumbing-down mindset.) It's nice to hear you're interested and/or involved in contributing to cleanliness (anti-rubbish), but that job is too big for one human. And "civility" (spotting bad words) is the least problem with civility. (Underhandedness and dishonesty is the true incivility, and that's harder to identify or deal with. So WP doesn't. Here is WP's message: "Wanna lie? Wanna falsely accuse? Go ahead. As long as it doesn't interrupt the building of the encyclopedia, it has no ethical content or weight." A "civil, collaborative environment"? Really? With ethical blindness? Does not compute, Will Robinson!) But I really wish you luck in any/all your reform efforts. (It is a noble cause me thinks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm no reformer! I just have no desire for adminship. Ever. So I can get my hands dirty occasionally fighting the POV-pushers and promo-spammers knowing I won't one day have to account for it answering Q3 at RFA. Agree with your assessment of ANI, for the most part. Stalwart111 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. (Who wants to be a hall monitor? The purpose of the encyclopedia is the articles. Content is king.) The best Admins don't let Adminship go to their heads. But that's a tricky business, and takes a superior person to resist the temptation. Take Dennis Brown for e.g. He has constantly reminded us that he is "the last to block", which in reality, whether he is conscious of it or not, is a constant reminder that he does have the ability to block, and should he decide to use it, doesn't want to be questioned or countermanded, so the constant reminders are a way to make that bed. But it's so transparent it's silly. The reminders of "I'm the last to block" is really waving a club around, indirectly demanding others do as he says, else he will block, and then, what will be left of the poor soul who is blocked, because afterall, he was blocked by "the most lenient Admin of the bunch". Like I said, it takes a superior person to avoid the temptation of power abuse, and not wielding the power, but proclaiming to have it to wield should one decide to wield it is ... less abusive? Aaron Nimzowitsch said "The threat is worse than the execution." I think you're on the right track and wish you luck. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the good wishes and, of course, the cordial chat. Stalwart111 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. User:Quale is a totally good guy at the ProjChess for many years before I even knew what "Misplaced Pages" was. (Intelligent, thoughtful, careful, patient, fair-minded.) So when he shows a human side of patience break-down and a bit of incivility, you know something is really bad. As newcomer to ProjChess, you couldn't know that context. I think it is important. (More important than "civility breach", since, it runs deeper and telltales more substance.) I disagree with the artificial enforcement of civility breaches around here ... they are usually just excuses for an Admin to block someone they don't like. Admins seem to have not a clue as to the distaste they generate in content contributors, and many have left as a result. And I know I'm resentful toward a lot of it. (I enjoyed reading Malleus, and now, he's gone. Whoever is even partly is to blame for that, won't find kind words from me.) It's been pleasant meeting you too. Ihardlythinkso (talk)

Hi

Look, there's no need to carry on with this. I just wanted to point something out though - if you don't want me to post at your talk page, that's fine. But you can't unilaterally decide what I may or may not comment on at other venues. If you're going to make sarcy comments on other editors' talk pages you've got to be ready to take a few back. Basalisk ⁄_berate 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Basalisk, that is superbly hypocritical, and let me tell you why ... Herostratus was making sarcy comments on Malleus's User talk, and, consistent with your value system, I gave him "a few back". Yet, you took that, as an opportunity to attack me. Pure hypocriticality from you, Basalisk. Regarding my request that you cease interfacing with me, it was totally reasonable, as I do not want any trouble with you. But if you insist to cause me trouble, I'll be in your face, and, I really don't want to do that. (That is why I suggested, that you ignore me and don't put messages to my attention anymore. Your message on Malleus's Talk was to harass me, and nothing more. The content of what you had to say was void.) I know you haven't gotten over my criticism of Dennis Brown, who nominated you at your successful RfA, and feel necessary to be against me whenever possible, as some sort of revenge harassment. It's so shallow. I say: drop it, and please go away. You are an Admin, and should rise above harassing the content contributors. Malleus has already left a sad wake on that end, and, I'm not 1% the contributor he was, I am not comparing myself to him. But the shit flying around this place is the same for everybody, the environment here is full of it (pun intended). Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

IHTS, this idea of yours that I have some sort of vendetta against you is absurd: I have interacted with you on a grand total of two occasions; the first time to refute your unreasonable demand that admins be compelled to admonish all bad behaviour they encounter, and the second time now.. I don't know why you keep raising the point of me being an admin; I have never taken an administrative action against you and the A word doesn't need to be an issue in every conversation I have on Misplaced Pages. I'm still a normal person with an independent opinion, regardless what toolset I have access to. A spade is still a spade. Basalisk ⁄_berate 01:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't stick words in my mouth I never said ("vendetta"). You make me out like some kind of paranoid freak. You are human, you butted your nose where it didn't belong and where you were not invited, and seeing that it was in my conversation w/ Dennis Brown where I was being critical of him, and you are a new Admin he nominated at RfA ... well, I'm not stupid. And as human, you're only oh oh so capable of defending the one who carried you to Admin, and of holding a grudge, which explains your unnecessary and tacky attempt to defame me at Malleus's Talk, it is ever so common, and pointless, and needs no "vendetta" dark & scary. I don't see that you and I have anything to talk about really, you have initiated all conversation with me, I find you insulting and harassing at Malleus's Talk, and a nuisance in other places, so, why can't you just leave me alone? You're a mere 34 percent content contributor, and I'm not entertaining any insults from you, such as that I'm inconsistent with my Userbox message, when you yourself have shown big hypocrisy as already pointed out. Is your purpose as an admin to drive me away as content contributor?! Then do me a favor and show me otherwise, by leaving me alone. I don't see any purpose to this conversation, if not to harass me and cause trouble. (What then? We have no business together, do we?) "A spade is a spade" and that has to do with what exactly? I have no need to be lectured with tautologies. "What was, was. What is, is. What's gonna be ... is gonna be." (Archie Bunker.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a hint Basalisk, I asked you on your user Talk to leave me alone period, and what do you do? Open a thread here on my User. GO AWAY. You have no credibility with me, you've earned that. I want nothing to do with you. Go away and don't come back. And address no comments my way either, the last ones were tacky and unnecessary. I have no interest to converse with you about anything. You don't contribute much to articles, but you contribute to the shit environment at WP. Sorry but I have no respect for that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) p.s. More insulting comments from you: "absurd", "bizarre". Go soak your head, Basalisk, and leave me the hell alone with your harassing, tacky crap. How many times does it take to understand that I'm sick of your harassing comments and want nothing to do with you and want you to leave me alone el permanent-o?!

Having trouble keeping your word and following through? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, that's another tacky, shitty thing you did, in your edit summary, falsely accusing me of "following you" as though a stalker. Tacky. Shitty. I gave you a point-blank direct message, to your User talk. Apparently that was too simple for you to understand?! More attempt to manipulatively and dishonestly defame me. You use WP to harass, and you are an Admin. What a shining example of Admin you are! Just go away. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

More of your hypocritical crap, compare:

I have interacted with you on a grand total of two occasions; Basalisk

and:

Another constructive comment from a long line of constructive comments by IHTS right there... Basalisk

Just go away with your manipulative, defaming crap. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Out of the closet

Just in case you missed it, you have now been accused of racism as well. Welcome to the club! Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Calling people "uneducated" is a personal attack. Comment on articles at AfD, not nominators. Consider this a warning. Basalisk ⁄_berate 09:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, "uneducated" means "ignorant of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines". WP:AGF says, "It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's culture and rules", which is obviously not a personal attack. I don't see a problem there. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You're free to see it any way you please, but he didn't say "ignorant of Misplaced Pages policies", he said "uneducated", and that's not ok. Basalisk ⁄_berate 10:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Toccata. It's obvious what's going on here, but it's nice to receive supportive comment when being picked out for harassing threats & warning. Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Nothing wrong with it in the context it was used. @Basalisk - from the interactions above you are clearly not the most suitable Admin. to offer advice and warnings to this particular editor. You are too WP:INVOLVED. Leaky Caldron 10:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Leaky. It's clear I've pissed Basalisk off by my past responses to him, and now he's actively looking for anything possible to use as justification for a revenge block. (How shameful.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• No need for tears, I never mentioned a block and obviously wouldn't block an editor I've been in dispute with. Just a reminder about the policy on personal attacks. Basalisk ⁄_berate 11:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Go away and leave me alone, Basalisk. You've been continually harassing me here and elsewhere. I want nothing to do with you, as repeatedly told you. Go away forever, please. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's "not okay" to use word "uneducated" in context of a newbie's knowledge of WP policy, procedure, and practice regarding an unjustified stream of spurious AfD nominations of British chess players, but, apparently, it is okay for him to accuse me of masterbating: , to comment that my "personality traits" show that I am a "hypocritical blowhard": , and to call me an "idiot": . (So, Basalisk, I see you have, on your User talk, assured User:OGBranniff that "Ihardlythinkso" needs "direction"; however, User:OBGranniff's behavior, this and elsewhere, goes uncommented on. That's just superb showing of Administrator discretion, that!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian