Talk:Kriegspiel (chess)

Old talk

best chess variant ever

Agreed.--Dch111 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pawn tries

The article currently states: "This gives extra information, but saves both players the bother of beginning every turn by trying all possible pawn captures. This is possible at no risk because pawns don't move the same way they capture. Hence, if no capture is possible, then the move is illegal and there is no penalty for attempting illegal moves."

The way I've always played Kriegspiel, this is wrong. There is a risk in beginning every turn by trying all possible pawn captures, namely that if you stumble on one that is legal, you are committed to making that move (which may not be your best). As a consequence, I've never heard of it being automatic that the umpire states whether pawn captures are possible (as the article currently has it) but I believe players can ask the umpire whether they have any pawn captures (and if the umpire says yes, they have to try at least one). However, I don't want to amend the article as perhaps the way I've been introduced to this game isn't the only way to play it. 91.107.155.67 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Two sources from which I have learnt Kriegspiel rules in the past (French chess composition magazine Phénix and Chess Variants site) do not list pawn captures as automatic announcement neither. Instead, the question Are there any (pawn captures possible)? (sometimes even shortened to just 'Any?') has to be asked by player to move and if the answer is 'Yes', player has to try some capture (sometimes this is emphasized by 'Try!' answer by umpire). --Ruziklan (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I've amended the article. Double sharp (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't played Krieg/w16 on the ICC in years (although when I did, I won the first ICC Krieg championship, brag alert), but possible pawn captures were always announced by the software without inquiry. Has that changed? It was clearly a concession to keep the refereeing software more tractable, but I rather preferred it to the "are there any?" inquiry that I grew up with. How's the w16 at the ICC doing these days? -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"Hell no"

"Hell no (or Impossible), when the attempted move is always illegal regardless of the opponent's position. For example, moving a bishop a knight's move."

Is this a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.127.220.42 (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing not, but I don't know the source. "An optional rule requires the umpire to say 'Impossible' or 'Nonsense' if a player deliberately attempts to deceive his opponent (for example, by asking 'Any?' when he has no pawns left)." Pritchard, D. B. (2000). "Kriegspiel". Popular Chess Variants. B.T. Batsford Ltd. p. 64. ISBN 0-7134-8578-7.
Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to this, I think the ref is supposed to say "You've tried that," if a player repeats an impossible move attempt. The idea is that a player cannot trick the opponent into thinking that he has more moves at his dispsal that he actually does. WHPratt (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kriegspiel (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/20071123081716/http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/olympiad2006/rules.html to http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/olympiad2006/rules.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311040529/http://chess.cs.umd.edu/kriegspiel/ to http://chess.cs.umd.edu/kriegspiel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Penalty for illegal moves

The article states: "see below for penalty on attempting an illegal move". But nowhere in the article do I see the penalty described. I went back through the page's history back through part of 2007, in case it was deleted, but I don't see it anywhere since then. This is the revision in which that specific wording originated. Nabarry (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

En passant capture announcements

According to The Chess Variant Pages they are announced as such, but according to the presentation in Variant Chess 15 (p. 110), they are not: An en passant pawn capture is simply announced as 'capture on e3', but if it follows an injunction to try, its nature may be evident. Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Threefold repetition

In fact, passing through a threefold may be necessary to win (in order to gather information). I'm actually not sure if threefold is generally understood as the article claims: for one thing, in orthodox chess the game doesn't automatically stop with a threefold (like it would for checkmate or dead position), and you have to claim it. So logically, it should be something the players claim rather than the referees, as discussed on MatPlus. You couldn't be sure when making your claim, but that seems in the spirit of the variant. Double sharp (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)