Talk:Atomic chess

Another atomic chess?

It seems there is another game named "Atomic chess". I discovered it at IYT These are its complete rules. As far as I understand, in the beginning each players chooses its own atomic piece, which remains unknown to his opponent. After move 5 you can choose between doing a normal move or detonating the "atomic piece". The detonation eliminates every single piece in a square beside the one occupied by itself. --alfanje 19:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This game is called "Beirut chess" in Pritchard's encyclopedia. It was invented by Jim Winslow in 1991. There is a Java applet to try out the game. In this Java implementation you can't choose, which piece carries the bomb. Andreas Kaufmann 21:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The september re-write + the check rule

I re-wrote the whole thing. I added a chapter on tactics and theory and stuff. I wanted to go into detail but it would probably need a new page like chess and chess openings does. The tactics part you can re do if you want I'm not all that happy with it. I'm rated 1850 at the moment so I don't know everything but I know enough to know the article before was rubish. Could do with an image or a link to an image showing the way capturing works.Fegor 06:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, its not quite correct about the check rule, I will invert it. As it was originally played with check enforced as far as I know. ICC basically is the variant, no idea why they don't have check enforced though. If you are unhappy with this, we can discuss it further.--Seberg 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I will do a picture late (or ask someone else to do). Deleted stub as well, don't think it is a stub after your last edits ;). About the check rule. Atomic chess was first featured on GICS with check, so unless you find something older, ICC atomic is a variant of this one IMO, however maybe we could mention this earlier and more explicitly.--Seberg 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

as far as I'm concerned I would not want to play any check rule rated but that's a preference. even the most militant check rule types (the most wrong :P ) have to admit it is played with varying importance across the internet and someone who knows more about how each server enforces it should probably make a whole chapter of the article about it. I was wrong to put "there is no check rule in atomic chess" just as you are wrong to say there is check rule. Tomorrow I will add a link to the section of Tipau's website which talks about this and remove your assertion as a fact that there is a check rule. http://vagonchik.info/sigge/tipau/rules.html. if we can't agree then I'll ask moltenthinker, Peter-patzer or Tipau to come here and tell us whatfor. what's your rating Seberg? also I'll do some more cleaning.Fegor 23:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My rating doesn't matter much anyways, I didn't really change much about the game anyways. But I do know atomic scene very well. Anyways, check rule is historically the correct one, also look at chessvariants, etc. Though I agree that because of the fact that non-check rule was implemented quite a bit later on (well mostly icc) it should be mentioned as well. Fact is, first GICS implemented it with check rule, other servers followed, FICS, MEWIS and probably more with check rule. Only ICC seems to have invented the no check rule later for reasons unknown to me. So I do think that the no-check atomic chess is a variant of this, though I suppose it is big enough to be mentioned equally.--Seberg 09:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Killing"

I will defer to the opinion of the experienced player who loves the word "KILL" so much that he/she applies it oddly to a game involving inanimate objects (pieces). Carry on! --BadSanta

It seems more in the spirit of things. This isn't a cold, calculating strategy game. --Twinxor 20:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I take it pretty serously :D and you can use the word "kill". it's easier than "by primary or secondary capture". I'm self taught and it just came naturally into my vocab when I talk to myself throughout a game. Fegor 22:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Opening theory

It would be nice to write some pages related to several common main lines, for instance Nf3 f6 e3 e6, Nf3 f6 e4, Nf3 f6 Nc3, including some traps and/or lines that have been refuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.223.32.103 (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A Question: In the example "A Common Opening Trap", it says "Black cannot stop 4.Nxf8". I do not see how this move wins the example game. That move by the white knight blows up the black bishop and 5 black pieces around it it (Black Queen, knight,and 3 pawns) leaving a big hole in the black defense, but the black king is untouched after the explosion, and not in check after the move, so I don't see whats wrong. Could someone explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickybobpat (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rickybobpat: f8 is next to e8, which is where black's king is. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Duhh! Thanks, I don't follow those diagrams too often. I was thinking the king was the queen and vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickybobpat (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah,some opening theory might be nice. Geekpotato24 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Do any of you play on Lichess.org? Geekpotato24 (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but not much atomic. My interest in atomic was back on MEWIS, ICC, and the early days of when it was on FICS/USCL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

ohGeekpotato24 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atomic chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525213403/http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/Atomic/rules.pdf to http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/Atomic/rules.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140525213513/http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/ to http://virtual.parkland.edu/lblackburn/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Animated Gif

If capturing results in an explosion that destroys pieces on all 8 blocks surrounding the capture point, why does the gif show two pawns left adjacent to the Nxg7 capture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.120.205.101 (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Capturing results in an explosion that destroys the capturing piece, the captured piece, and nonpawns on the 8 squares surrounding the capture point. Pawns are unaffected unless directly taking or taken. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Non-existent Links

Theses links don't currently work:

"History": "German Internet Chess Server" and "Middle East Wild Internet Server". Should we just remove the connection to those articles?

"References": "World Chess Links - Varianti degli Scacchi". References 1 and 2 are on the same sentence, so we can probably delete this one (Reference 3). Puredication (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

After double-checking the entire "References" section, I found that References 7, 9, and 10 also don't work. I'll try finding newer resources soon, but help would be appreciated. Puredication (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I went ahead and updated several of the references. Generally when we can't find the new home of a particular page archive.org has a copy. There's a bot that tries to make an archive of every link added to Wikipedia, so they're usually available. Of course, these links may have been added before that bot got started, so I'm not sure. Regardless, the only one that's still broken is the "world chess links" ref. After doing some digging, I see it's from worldchesslinks [dot] net, which apparently changed owners a few years ago (and is now blacklisted on Wikipedia because it's probably a spammy content farm). There's an archive version available at archive.org from 2013is, but I've not found anything useful. Not opposed to removing it.

As for the GICS and MEWIS links. I added them (at least I think it was me) thinking they may be notable enough for an article one day. As time goes on, that seems less and less likely. I certainly didn't find sufficient sourcing to justify an article. Not opposed to removing the redlinks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

All of the References (except Reference 3) work for me now. I removed the red links since we can always re-add them (if we create pages for GICS and/or MEWIS), but will let you decide Reference 3's fate. Puredication (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)