Talk:Circular chess

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article needs

I just looked at the article and (1) it needs more links. I added several. (2) the theory section needs better references. It sounds like it could be original research. (3) more information on tactics and checkmates would be nice. Bubba73 (talk), 03:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. What do you suggest there should be links to? I added the obvious ones (David Howell, Lincoln Cathedral, Da Vinci Code etc.). There aren't articles on other players, and since most of them are unknown outside the world of circular chess they probably wouldn't be considered sufficiently notable to merit them.

Most of the endgame theory is self-evident: on a square board the mates with rook, two bishops or bishop and knight rely on forcing the king into a corner. The circular board doesn't have corners, hence these mates cannot be forced. I'll see if I can work out a way of putting diagrams in, that might help to make it a bit clearer.Chile Nose Jam (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King and rook (right triangle mate) doesn't require a corner though, only an edge. Zowayix001 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the source links is now squatted. Should be removed. That is, the circular chess society link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.5.130 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only found reference concerns John Gollon Book. Reference added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphael.elie.kakou (talk • contribs) 04:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History and rules

This section is vague. Circular Chess is really attested in Persia since 10th century by al-Mas‘ûdî as ar-Rûmîya. Reference: H.J.R.Murray, History of Chess (1913), pp342-343. It is wrong to say that the rules did not survive. The rules have been recorded, see Murray. The moves of the men was played accordingly to Shatranj rules for the essential. That form of circular Chess was never attested in Middle Age in Europe. What was attested was a completely different game, Escaques, a zoodiacal inspired game which used a circular board too, but very different and was loosely related to Chess. Then, it should be better to name that reference that David Reynolds came across for a game being played in the Middle Ages. Moreover, if this mediaeval circular chess would exist, it would have been very different since Queen and Bishops were moving very differently in Middle Ages than today. In short, this section would deserve a revisit.Cazaux (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Cazaux (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting position

For at least the Modern variant, the article claims that the starting position is obtained by cutting the board in half and joining the back ranks. However, the picture shows a black square for the right-hand side corner [of the square board]. Should the layout depicted be changed to place the Q's rank counter-clockwise to the K's to ensure a white right-hand side corner? Webdrone (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History section

After Dec 18th bunch of edits "History" section doesn't make sense as a text, never mind proper citations. I would've edited it back into proper grammatical and punctuational shape, except I have no idea what the editor was trying to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.123.52 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]