explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3139: Chess Variant

2025-10-07T18:14:10Z

AverseABFun:

{{comic
| number = 3139
| date = September 8, 2025
| title = Chess Variant
| image = chess_variant_2x.png
| imagesize = 310x344px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The draw-by-repetition rule does a good job of keeping players from sliding a tile back and forth repeatedly, but the tiles definitely introduce some weird en passant and castling edge cases.
}}

==Explanation==
A {{w|Sliding puzzle|sliding puzzle}} is a puzzle with movable pieces that challenges players to slide the pieces around the board to get them into a certain pattern or to move a certain piece into a certain position. Patterns can be anything from a completed image to a series of numbers. One of the most common variants, the {{w|15 puzzle}}, is a square board with 15 square pieces (usually numbered 1 through 15, to be placed in obvious order, but can also feature segments of a larger picture that needs to be correctly assembled) and one empty space in a 4×4 grid. The goal is to order the numbers (or reassemble the picture) without lifting any piece, only sliding adjacent pieces into the empty space. [[Randall]] contemplates making a {{w|Chess variant|variant of chess}} in which 2×2 sections of the board can be moved around, possibly as an alternative to moving your own pieces. It is possible that “sliding number chess puzzle” is a pun on actual {{w|chess puzzles}} in which pieces are set up in a position and the player must find the best move or sequence of moves in that position.

A similar concept exists in {{w|Three-dimensional chess#Star Trek Tri-Dimensional Chess|Star Trek 3D chess}}. Although there's no official rule set by the show creators, the rules were invented by Star Trek fans. In this variant, the board has several 2×2 "attack boards" that can be moved around. For a more prosaic analog, the game {{w|Labyrinth (board game)|Labyrinth}} uses a board composed of tiles that players use to rearrange the playing arena, and features a similar prohibition against reversing the change made by the previous play.

The title text states that because of the {{w|threefold repetition}} rule in chess, sliding a tile back and forth will result in a draw, just as would already happen with the moving of the ''pieces'' back into an overall state of the board. This may discourage unimaginative 'stalling' play by one player, in allowing the other player to claim a draw and avoid a loss. However, this rule would probably lead to more draws, as it allows the player in the losing position to move tiles in an attack that could easily be avoided by moving the tile back. Thus, it gives a small extra advantage to the player in the losing position, as the player who is winning is not likely to draw their position. However, it's also mentioned that there are logistical challenges involving ''en passant'' pawn capture and castling with the tiles involved.

''{{w|En passant}}'' is a unique interaction between adjacent pawns of opposing sides. Normally, pawns can only move straight ahead, one space at a time, and can only capture pieces that are placed one square diagonally forward. However, an unmoved pawn can choose to advance two spaces rather than the usual one. If such a pawn thus bypasses the threatened area of an opposing pawn, that opposing pawn may then capture the pawn that moved two spaces ''en passant'', treating it as vulnerable (and retroactively capturable) at the mid-move moment that it had only travelled one space forward. Since the sliding chess puzzle is separated into 2×2 boards, a pawn positioned on one of those pieces would be able to move two spaces rather than the usual one from its transported location. It could be argued that a pawn moving directly past an opposing pawn on a moving 2×2 board segment could be vulnerable to ''en passant'' capture. Possibly, the capturing pawn would end up where the captured pawn was originally destined, it having attacked the 'stationary' but shifting pawn, mid way through the movement of the board tile, and then effectively completed the act of being carried onward. Also possibly, this style of ''en passant'' would apply to pawns effectively carried two tiles backwards/sideways past a suitably placed opposing pawn, transitions that a pawn could not otherwise make by its usual mode of movement.

{{w|Castling}} is a move involving the king and rooks. Normally, the king can only advance one square at a time in any direction, while a rook can move on either axis but cannot pass through other piece. If neither the king or rook have been moved in the current game, there are no pieces between them, and no opposing piece threatens the king's whole movement, a player may choose to "castle". This (in a normal setup) notionally involves moving the king two spaces towards a chosen rook (at the extreme left and right edges of the back rank upon which the king starts nearly in the middle of) and then placing that rook directly in the space the king moved over. It could be argued that a king and/or rook placed on respective 2×2 boards of the sliding puzzle, at least one of which has been shifted since the start of the game, have not themselves moved and thus should be eligible to castle from their resulting relative positions, with suitably modified repositioning rules.

It is also left unclear whether the wider-ranging pieces are allowed to effectively move through the missing/virtual spaces in the board where there currently is no tile, beyond merely being unable to ''end'' their move in the current 'hole' where no traditional chess squares exist at that moment. It also brings up the question of whether pawns promote if the tile that they are on gets moved to the last rank of tiles with the pawn on the last rank of squares. If so, who would get to choose which piece to promote, if the player whose pawn it isn't moved the piece?

One interpretation of the game shown is that white played e4, black e5, continuing with Nf3 and Nc6, then white played d4 (all normal moves, so far, the [https://lichess.org/opening/Scotch_Game Scotch Game]). In response, black slid the puzzle-square to the right to make white’s knight on the rim 'dim', and decentralize white’s pawn.

An early example of Randall depicting a 'movable' fragment of chessboard was used in [[839: Explorers]]. Though that one was of size 3×3, and had become entirely separated from the 'home board' (perhaps not even being originally part of it, having initially been assembled adjacent to it) and under its own motive power.

[[User:AverseABFun]] has created a version of this as a website at [https://x3139.trustworthysources.xyz x3139.trustworthysources.xyz].

==Transcript==
:[A chessboard is shown with the white pieces at the bottom of the screen. The pieces are illustrated in the basic design of standard computer chess. The chessboard is divided into 16 2×2 sliding squares with the e3-f4 sliding square currently being moved to the g3-h4 spot. Otherwise the opening is a standard Scotch Opening, with the pieces in the e3-f4 tile like how they are supposed to be in a scotch opening.]
:[Caption below the panel:]
:Sliding number puzzle chess

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Chess]]

Talk:3139: Chess Variant

2025-09-11T02:31:17Z

AverseABFun:

I should add support for playing this to my WIP chess library.
[[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 21:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel nerdsniped by this one, and I'm not even into chess. Should you either slide a tile or move a piece in your turn, or should you do both, or should you move a piece on your turn and slide a tile on your opponent's turn? Also, should it disallow sliding the board back to its immediately previous state, to avoid the back-and-forth situation on the title text (but would still allow moving in circles)? Which would be more fair, and reduce the chance of draws? So many questions... [[Special:Contributions/185.81.126.164|185.81.126.164]] 22:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:I have another, but related, question about the sliding, on the assumption of it being "move or slide", each turn: Do you ''have'' to fully move a tile, or may you half-move it? It would give the opponent only the chance to either complete or reverse the 'slide', if they found it tactically more advantageous to do either (would depend upon which pieces, of either side, were 'loaded' on the 2x2 as it moved; and/or perhaps which through-paths were enabled/disconnected for each slider-position; and a half-move completed by the opposing player is effectively a 'free slide'-then-move for the original player, if not accountsd for in other ways). But, if the opposing player chooses (or is forced; perhaps from 3-repeat/5-repeat consequences, or even due to potential "discovered check" exposures?) not to complete/reverse the half-slide, then does the loading/unloading any bishop upon the half-moved 2x2 (with the black/white chequerboard temporarily misaligned in the vicinity) give it an opportunity to change which shade of diagonals are its 'home'?
::Yes, it'd be simpler (relatively!) to just require it to be whole-tile (2x2-square) sliding, but it'd be more ''interesting'' to consider the (otherwise valid) half-disjointed positions. Especially insofar as it works for the combined bishopry on the board! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.63|82.132.238.63]] 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:::If the opponent is allowed any way to make the bishop leave its designated color then I am allowed to blast them with holy water for their sins[[Special:Contributions/46.144.8.194|46.144.8.194]] 11:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Hooooookay. If 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 , it's Black's move in canonical chess. For the position shown in this variant, White would have to be allowed to move a piece and a sliding section: 3. d4 & ef34>gh34, Black to move. Why White would use the extra move to double down on surrendering the center of the board, sacrificing the gambit pawn for no apparent benefit, is beyond me. At best, this is taking hypermodernism to incomprehensible extreFOOOOOOOOM. Ow ... [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553|2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553]] 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: A clarification on moving in circles. The draw by repetition rule causes a draw when a position on the board is repeated 3 times at ''any point'' during the game. Thus, moving tiles in circles would cause a draw. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 12:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

:: Couldn't this be black beginning their turn by moving a tile? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: What is the starting position of the tiles? Can ranged pieces pass over the “gap”? Can you slide a row of tiles at once or only one? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8|2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8]] 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Can that black pawn advance straight to the tile in front of the king or is it stuck until the gap is filled? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: If the sliding number puzzle idea was taken to its logical(!) conclusion, you would set up the board first and then randomise the tiles, which would result in some... interesting starting positions. If you did this, would it be possible for either, or both, of the players to be in checkmate at the start of the game? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps the most balanced starting position would be a complete board, with removing an unoccupied tile (once only) being one possible move.[[Special:Contributions/196.245.54.177|196.245.54.177]] 05:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How long do you think it will be until someone actually implements this? [[Special:Contributions/206.193.5.5|206.193.5.5]] 23:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
: Buddy I am working on it [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 03:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Hope you make a version that allows En Passant with a pawn that had the tile slide --[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811|2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811]] 05:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we specify positions for the transcript or do we just say "scotch opening"[[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

Could you just slide yourself out of ladder checks then? {{unsigned ip|108.211.178.78|03:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)}}

This reminds me of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUVVpB7QdbQ Twist and slide cube]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a pretty awesome board game somewhat similar to this concept already exists called '''The Amazing Labyrinth'''. '''[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1219/labyrinth Listing on BoardGameGeek] / [https://www.ravensburger.us/en-US/products/games/family-games/labyrinth-26448 Listing on Ravensburger website] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(board_game) Wikipedia page].''' — [[User:Lheydon|Lheydon]] ([[User talk:Lheydon|talk]]) 05:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems highly reminiscent of something that Ralph Betza of Chess Variants Dot Org would have created. I can basically outline the rule set that he would have used for games like this:
# A move that undoes what the other player just did is not allowed.
# A move of that does not alter anything other than the position of the hole is not allowed.
# Riders (R, B, Q) cannot cross the gap. Leapers (N) may jump across the gap. A piece moving diagonally may cross a vertex if there are three or more actually present squares touching that vertex.
# Pawns are simply stuck if they are not on rank 8 and there is no square in front of them.
# Moving the hole does not move the piece, so castling rights of a Rook is not affected by moving.
# Moving the hole counts as a move, so if you had en passant rights beforehand you lose it.
# Notation would be to pretend the hole is a piece, perhaps using the fake piece H and taking the square closest to a8 as its nominal square, so for the move depicted you'd write, e.g. 1. Hg4.

I cannot find something '''exactly''' identical to this idea, but I certainly recall a "Subway chess" of some sort (not written by Betza) where there is a blob of squares in the middle of the board and you can move the train left and right in lieu of moving a piece. And Betza did write [https://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/earthquake.html Earthquake Chess], which is this game but with a different thing to slide. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:When I was considering the "riders and leapers" issue, I couldn't thing of a possible instance of "Leapers (N) may jump across the gap" where the move of two in one orthogonal and one in the other (where the mid-move 'landed' on 'space') could not be performed as first the one ''then'' the two (the mid-move being on a non-'space'). Just as it doesn't matter normally whether either, both ''or'' none mid-move squares are occupied by other pieces, and it affects neither Knight or mid-spottee piece in any way, though a 'long knight'-type fairy-piece ({±3x ±1y}, or vice-versa) might be affected by the same 'initial/final ride' being restricted. Similarly thinking of it as moving one square orthogonally then (continuing, rather than reversing) one square diagonally can be also one diagonal then an orthogonal (being just one of the components of the diagonal).
:Of course, some people may think of knights as always 2-then-1 ''or'' orth-then-diag (or vice-versa, in either case) and handwave away the possible 'mid-jump' occupant this might involve. But mid-jump 'barriers' are still always ignored (even if on any/all 'tracks' that a moving knight might use), so unavoidable mid-jump voids would need explicitly to be defined as different to the ability to ignore the more mundane sitation of a piece being 'inconveniently' where any knight needs to transition via. (It wouldn't even need the edge-skimming diagonality rule, which I appreciate, but might be more simply defined that any other square which forms part or all of the movement in that direction must be free. Or, for the destination, an opposing piece which may be captured.)
:But whether there are prior "fairy boards" with holes in, that specify explicit limits to a knight's leaping-movs over the gaps, I don't know.
:I had thought to take a look at [[3036: Chess Zoo]] and derive Randall's philosophy regarding 'knight-permeable' barriers, there. But there seem no ''obviously'' intentional selectively-blocking 'cage walls' (i.e. a knight could jump from A to B, with B as a mere token open square, but travelling from B to A, with rotated "L"-route, would involve a token blocking-square instead). There's at least one knight who could make a single-move transition that would be impossibly in reverse (or would be impossible, but have been possible in reverse), given a certain limitation assumption. But it can progress between the two by multiple other (openly valid) leaps and so there's no obviously intended limitation that could be assumed to be invoked.
:Apart from that, I like the castling 'allowance', but does it mean that a castle and/or king that has slid-but-not-moved must then invoke it by the king moving two steps from its (possibly slid-to) initial position towards the castle's (possibly slid-to) initial position, by whatever orthogonal and/or diagonal steps are deemed necessary and valid to do so, and then the castle placed upon the intermediate king-step? Trivial for fully orthogonal (presuming that kings aren't asked to castle 'rankways', either way, when the castle involved is actually displaced directly 'filewards'), ''possibly'' trivial for fully diagonal (assuming that it's not further that it's "the major orthogonal separation" that the king's steps are constrained to, or preferentially by rank when it could be either?), but gets a bit more complicated if it's a more uneven diagonal with no 'integer' solution to each {X,Y}-step (first king-step must be the move that least deviates from the diagonal, second king-step must be to deviate least ''either'' from the original diagonal ''or'' the new one ''or'' the two identical steps taken must be the two-step (between the 2*orth and 2*diag transitions) that deviates least from the initial diagonal?).
:Also wondering what if the sliding-squares bring them unusually close. An example (sticking to just the home rank, for the sake of description, except for any necessary slides that transitioned us there) would be to go from R...KB.R =by sliding=> R.KB...R, say, then =by castling=> KR.B...R; or even via a slid rearrangement, KBR....R basic setup, but then moving the bishop to allow .RK....R, or also sending away the 'near'-rook to allow a slightly different .RK..... result.
:With the exception of a combination 'knight-move' by the king (in the manner of a diagonal displacement forcing an orthogonal+diagonal ''or'' diagonal+orthogonal two-step), the rules for no attack being upon any of the king's positions probably don't need considering further than merely checking the sole path over which the king must clearly shuffle. But if the square over which the king first needs to move is a choice between two intermediates, it could be a choice between one attacked/occupied/void square and another that is clear and not missing. Then the only correct choice (and the spot upon which the castle shall be transfered to) must be compatible with the diagonality-rule/-freedom for establishing the precise motions made during the shuffle.
:Obviously a lot of open questions there. Perhaps unnecessarily so, once some of the earlier issues are answered and thus provide obvious precedent and disambiguation to much of the remaining indecisive uncertainty. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Mr Betza has a bunch of helpful pointers for these as well. He's quite prolific and most importantly all his games hang together well, which is why I take to him as basically the authority in how Chess-like games should behave.
::* With Castlingmost Chess we interpret a castling piece to be moved in such a way that the King moves to the midpoint of the locations of the starting two pieces – rounding away from its starting point if that's between squares – and then moving the Rook to the other side. Along with FIDE rules stating that Rooks may only castle if they are on the same rank as the King this basically handles all cases. In particular, a castling move with an adjacent K and R would simply have the two pieces trade places.
::* The rules of FIDE Chess specify that Knights move to one of the up to eight closest squares that is not the same rank, file or diagonal as its starting square. This sidesteps all concerns about whether or not a Knight ''passes through'' any square or not and renders any idea of "jumping" moot. In fairy chess though it is generally understood to be orthogonal first, then diagonal, I presume due to the analogous piece in Chinese chess being hobbled at this square specifically. In any case a leaper being able to jump over spaces where there is no square is a frequent feature of Chess variants and so putting in the rule just sets it in easily. Balance-wise it gives Knights a chance at navigating tight spaces without being trapped. UX-wise it just preëmpts any awkward questions about what is blocking a Knight's path and having to relitigate it every time someone makes a slightly controversial move. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 16:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How would one handle the board gap and pieces jumping into it/moving through it? Which side has advantage based on gap location? I think slide and move (order to be determined). Move/slide as a combined step would be interesting for rook/bishop/queen/horse calculaitons. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.45|163.116.254.45]] 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC) psyllix

Tile grid and algebraic notation - Proposal for the notation:

* Tile grid:

--------------------
s| Ws | Xs | Ys | Zs |
--------------------
t| Wt | Xt | Yt | Zt |
--------------------
u| Wu | Xu | Yu | Zu |
--------------------
v| Wv | Xv | Yv | Zv |
--------------------
W X Y Z

* Algebraic notation for moving tiles:

(from)>(to)

Ex: Yu>Zu

(also, note: logged into my account of [[User/AverseABFun]], yes I forgot to mention this in the thing so if there's a way for me to prove it's me lemme know) [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 20:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:My only suggestion, is that you only need the "(from)". Or call it "(from)›", perhaps. Piece-moving notation often omits details that can be infered, so the sole/only queen that can land on d4 just needs "Qd4". But it could need the crucial starting file and/or rank, such as "Q6d4", if there are multiple queens that could get to d4.
:Every proper board-slide ''must'' have the "(to)" that was the last slide's "(from)", or the initial choice of starting-hole, so you just need to know which of the 2-4 neighbours, of the gap, you're moving into it (and that will become the new gap).
:And, with the suggestion (up there) that the first gap is initially created by only removing from a complete board any ''unoccupied'' 2x2 candidate, you could notate that instead as "(from)»" to describe the removal. ''Unless'' there's only one "uncamped" sub-board available, when "»" might be considered sufficient record, with the other 15 locations being irremovable at that point. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 03:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
:That sounds good, I agree that probably just "(from)>" is good for the tile, and "(from)»" for the initial removed tile. Maybe the equivalent FEN notation could be "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 Zu" (which is my suggestion for the starting position and seems to be what Randall has as the starting position). [[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 18:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So how would this move be rated? Is it a blunder, is it brilliant, or is it something inbetween? Can we even really know right now, without any history of this specific variant being played? [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 06:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
:I'm looking into it and it would be possible to set up Elo ratings for this style of chess as Elo ratings can be created for any zero-sum game. For figuring out blunders and others, that's subjective and when calculated is calculated through engines (commonly stockfish) so until someone adds support for slide chess (that's what I'm calling it as well as calling it X3139 chess) to stockfish or another engine we won't know. {{unsigned|AverseABFun|19:10, 10 September 2025}}

Okay, I have finished my initial version. Note that it does not have any sort of move validation. To move a tile, select any square in a tile in which you have at least one piece and then select any part of the empty tile. https://github.com/Aversefun/x3139-chess https://x3139.trustworthysources.xyz. {{unsigned|AverseABFun|19:01, 10 September 2025}}
:It's your implementation, your rules (and I haven't yet tried your version out for myself, to check), but I didn't get the impression from the comic that there was any limitation to which slidy piece you could slide based upon whether it held one of your pieces or not (which seems to be what you're considering).
:But maybe I'm just reading it too openly. My idea of the tactics involved being to keep the 'hole' ''away'' from the vicinity of any defensive formation you may have, lest your opponent gets to move your pieces out of formation and then procedes to further reshuffle your end of the board with the "portable hole" in ways are also actively disruptive to your placement. Conversely: make them ''think'' they're doing that, but actually letting them bring your pieces out, en mass, in a more valuable offensive arrangement. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.245.43|82.132.245.43]] 22:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
::True. Could be fun to add a mode switch so you can pick between different rulesets. [[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 01:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
::Alright, added a mode select. Should be up soon. It has four different modes. Now I'm going to see about implementing rules for allowed moves. See you in ten years I guess. [[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 01:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
::Okay it has many a bug and I need to figure out how to block off paths when it hits something because it is too lenient but basic rules for what's allowed are in place [[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 02:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3139: Chess Variant

2025-09-11T01:51:50Z

AverseABFun:

Talk:3139: Chess Variant

2025-09-11T01:19:41Z

AverseABFun:

Talk:3139: Chess Variant

2025-09-10T19:10:13Z

AverseABFun:

I should add support for playing this to my WIP chess library.
[[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 21:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel nerdsniped by this one, and I'm not even into chess. Should you either slide a tile or move a piece in your turn, or should you do both, or should you move a piece on your turn and slide a tile on your opponent's turn? Also, should it disallow sliding the board back to its immediately previous state, to avoid the back-and-forth situation on the title text (but would still allow moving in circles)? Which would be more fair, and reduce the chance of draws? So many questions... [[Special:Contributions/185.81.126.164|185.81.126.164]] 22:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:I have another, but related, question about the sliding, on the assumption of it being "move or slide", each turn: Do you ''have'' to fully move a tile, or may you half-move it? It would give the opponent only the chance to either complete or reverse the 'slide', if they found it tactically more advantageous to do either (would depend upon which pieces, of either side, were 'loaded' on the 2x2 as it moved; and/or perhaps which through-paths were enabled/disconnected for each slider-position; and a half-move completed by the opposing player is effectively a 'free slide'-then-move for the original player, if not accountsd for in other ways). But, if the opposing player chooses (or is forced; perhaps from 3-repeat/5-repeat consequences, or even due to potential "discovered check" exposures?) not to complete/reverse the half-slide, then does the loading/unloading any bishop upon the half-moved 2x2 (with the black/white chequerboard temporarily misaligned in the vicinity) give it an opportunity to change which shade of diagonals are its 'home'?
::Yes, it'd be simpler (relatively!) to just require it to be whole-tile (2x2-square) sliding, but it'd be more ''interesting'' to consider the (otherwise valid) half-disjointed positions. Especially insofar as it works for the combined bishopry on the board! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.63|82.132.238.63]] 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:::If the opponent is allowed any way to make the bishop leave its designated color then I am allowed to blast them with holy water for their sins[[Special:Contributions/46.144.8.194|46.144.8.194]] 11:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Hooooookay. If 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 , it's Black's move in canonical chess. For the position shown in this variant, White would have to be allowed to move a piece and a sliding section: 3. d4 & ef34>gh34, Black to move. Why White would use the extra move to double down on surrendering the center of the board, sacrificing the gambit pawn for no apparent benefit, is beyond me. At best, this is taking hypermodernism to incomprehensible extreFOOOOOOOOM. Ow ... [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553|2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553]] 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: A clarification on moving in circles. The draw by repetition rule causes a draw when a position on the board is repeated 3 times at ''any point'' during the game. Thus, moving tiles in circles would cause a draw. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 12:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

:: Couldn't this be black beginning their turn by moving a tile? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: What is the starting position of the tiles? Can ranged pieces pass over the “gap”? Can you slide a row of tiles at once or only one? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8|2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8]] 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Can that black pawn advance straight to the tile in front of the king or is it stuck until the gap is filled? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: If the sliding number puzzle idea was taken to its logical(!) conclusion, you would set up the board first and then randomise the tiles, which would result in some... interesting starting positions. If you did this, would it be possible for either, or both, of the players to be in checkmate at the start of the game? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps the most balanced starting position would be a complete board, with removing an unoccupied tile (once only) being one possible move.[[Special:Contributions/196.245.54.177|196.245.54.177]] 05:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How long do you think it will be until someone actually implements this? [[Special:Contributions/206.193.5.5|206.193.5.5]] 23:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
: Buddy I am working on it [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 03:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Hope you make a version that allows En Passant with a pawn that had the tile slide --[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811|2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811]] 05:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we specify positions for the transcript or do we just say "scotch opening"[[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

Could you just slide yourself out of ladder checks then? {{unsigned ip|108.211.178.78|03:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)}}

This reminds me of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUVVpB7QdbQ Twist and slide cube]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a pretty awesome board game somewhat similar to this concept already exists called '''The Amazing Labyrinth'''. '''[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1219/labyrinth Listing on BoardGameGeek] / [https://www.ravensburger.us/en-US/products/games/family-games/labyrinth-26448 Listing on Ravensburger website] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(board_game) Wikipedia page].''' — [[User:Lheydon|Lheydon]] ([[User talk:Lheydon|talk]]) 05:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems highly reminiscent of something that Ralph Betza of Chess Variants Dot Org would have created. I can basically outline the rule set that he would have used for games like this:
# A move that undoes what the other player just did is not allowed.
# A move of that does not alter anything other than the position of the hole is not allowed.
# Riders (R, B, Q) cannot cross the gap. Leapers (N) may jump across the gap. A piece moving diagonally may cross a vertex if there are three or more actually present squares touching that vertex.
# Pawns are simply stuck if they are not on rank 8 and there is no square in front of them.
# Moving the hole does not move the piece, so castling rights of a Rook is not affected by moving.
# Moving the hole counts as a move, so if you had en passant rights beforehand you lose it.
# Notation would be to pretend the hole is a piece, perhaps using the fake piece H and taking the square closest to a8 as its nominal square, so for the move depicted you'd write, e.g. 1. Hg4.

I cannot find something '''exactly''' identical to this idea, but I certainly recall a "Subway chess" of some sort (not written by Betza) where there is a blob of squares in the middle of the board and you can move the train left and right in lieu of moving a piece. And Betza did write [https://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/earthquake.html Earthquake Chess], which is this game but with a different thing to slide. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:When I was considering the "riders and leapers" issue, I couldn't thing of a possible instance of "Leapers (N) may jump across the gap" where the move of two in one orthogonal and one in the other (where the mid-move 'landed' on 'space') could not be performed as first the one ''then'' the two (the mid-move being on a non-'space'). Just as it doesn't matter normally whether either, both ''or'' none mid-move squares are occupied by other pieces, and it affects neither Knight or mid-spottee piece in any way, though a 'long knight'-type fairy-piece ({±3x ±1y}, or vice-versa) might be affected by the same 'initial/final ride' being restricted. Similarly thinking of it as moving one square orthogonally then (continuing, rather than reversing) one square diagonally can be also one diagonal then an orthogonal (being just one of the components of the diagonal).
:Of course, some people may think of knights as always 2-then-1 ''or'' orth-then-diag (or vice-versa, in either case) and handwave away the possible 'mid-jump' occupant this might involve. But mid-jump 'barriers' are still always ignored (even if on any/all 'tracks' that a moving knight might use), so unavoidable mid-jump voids would need explicitly to be defined as different to the ability to ignore the more mundane sitation of a piece being 'inconveniently' where any knight needs to transition via. (It wouldn't even need the edge-skimming diagonality rule, which I appreciate, but might be more simply defined that any other square which forms part or all of the movement in that direction must be free. Or, for the destination, an opposing piece which may be captured.)
:But whether there are prior "fairy boards" with holes in, that specify explicit limits to a knight's leaping-movs over the gaps, I don't know.
:I had thought to take a look at [[3036: Chess Zoo]] and derive Randall's philosophy regarding 'knight-permeable' barriers, there. But there seem no ''obviously'' intentional selectively-blocking 'cage walls' (i.e. a knight could jump from A to B, with B as a mere token open square, but travelling from B to A, with rotated "L"-route, would involve a token blocking-square instead). There's at least one knight who could make a single-move transition that would be impossibly in reverse (or would be impossible, but have been possible in reverse), given a certain limitation assumption. But it can progress between the two by multiple other (openly valid) leaps and so there's no obviously intended limitation that could be assumed to be invoked.
:Apart from that, I like the castling 'allowance', but does it mean that a castle and/or king that has slid-but-not-moved must then invoke it by the king moving two steps from its (possibly slid-to) initial position towards the castle's (possibly slid-to) initial position, by whatever orthogonal and/or diagonal steps are deemed necessary and valid to do so, and then the castle placed upon the intermediate king-step? Trivial for fully orthogonal (presuming that kings aren't asked to castle 'rankways', either way, when the castle involved is actually displaced directly 'filewards'), ''possibly'' trivial for fully diagonal (assuming that it's not further that it's "the major orthogonal separation" that the king's steps are constrained to, or preferentially by rank when it could be either?), but gets a bit more complicated if it's a more uneven diagonal with no 'integer' solution to each {X,Y}-step (first king-step must be the move that least deviates from the diagonal, second king-step must be to deviate least ''either'' from the original diagonal ''or'' the new one ''or'' the two identical steps taken must be the two-step (between the 2*orth and 2*diag transitions) that deviates least from the initial diagonal?).
:Also wondering what if the sliding-squares bring them unusually close. An example (sticking to just the home rank, for the sake of description, except for any necessary slides that transitioned us there) would be to go from R...KB.R =by sliding=> R.KB...R, say, then =by castling=> KR.B...R; or even via a slid rearrangement, KBR....R basic setup, but then moving the bishop to allow .RK....R, or also sending away the 'near'-rook to allow a slightly different .RK..... result.
:With the exception of a combination 'knight-move' by the king (in the manner of a diagonal displacement forcing an orthogonal+diagonal ''or'' diagonal+orthogonal two-step), the rules for no attack being upon any of the king's positions probably don't need considering further than merely checking the sole path over which the king must clearly shuffle. But if the square over which the king first needs to move is a choice between two intermediates, it could be a choice between one attacked/occupied/void square and another that is clear and not missing. Then the only correct choice (and the spot upon which the castle shall be transfered to) must be compatible with the diagonality-rule/-freedom for establishing the precise motions made during the shuffle.
:Obviously a lot of open questions there. Perhaps unnecessarily so, once some of the earlier issues are answered and thus provide obvious precedent and disambiguation to much of the remaining indecisive uncertainty. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Mr Betza has a bunch of helpful pointers for these as well. He's quite prolific and most importantly all his games hang together well, which is why I take to him as basically the authority in how Chess-like games should behave.
::* With Castlingmost Chess we interpret a castling piece to be moved in such a way that the King moves to the midpoint of the locations of the starting two pieces – rounding away from its starting point if that's between squares – and then moving the Rook to the other side. Along with FIDE rules stating that Rooks may only castle if they are on the same rank as the King this basically handles all cases. In particular, a castling move with an adjacent K and R would simply have the two pieces trade places.
::* The rules of FIDE Chess specify that Knights move to one of the up to eight closest squares that is not the same rank, file or diagonal as its starting square. This sidesteps all concerns about whether or not a Knight ''passes through'' any square or not and renders any idea of "jumping" moot. In fairy chess though it is generally understood to be orthogonal first, then diagonal, I presume due to the analogous piece in Chinese chess being hobbled at this square specifically. In any case a leaper being able to jump over spaces where there is no square is a frequent feature of Chess variants and so putting in the rule just sets it in easily. Balance-wise it gives Knights a chance at navigating tight spaces without being trapped. UX-wise it just preëmpts any awkward questions about what is blocking a Knight's path and having to relitigate it every time someone makes a slightly controversial move. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 16:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How would one handle the board gap and pieces jumping into it/moving through it? Which side has advantage based on gap location? I think slide and move (order to be determined). Move/slide as a combined step would be interesting for rook/bishop/queen/horse calculaitons. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.45|163.116.254.45]] 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC) psyllix

Tile grid and algebraic notation - Proposal for the notation:

* Tile grid:

--------------------
s| Ws | Xs | Ys | Zs |
--------------------
t| Wt | Xt | Yt | Zt |
--------------------
u| Wu | Xu | Yu | Zu |
--------------------
v| Wv | Xv | Yv | Zv |
--------------------
W X Y Z

* Algebraic notation for moving tiles:

(from)>(to)

Ex: Yu>Zu

(also, note: logged into my account of [[User/AverseABFun]], yes I forgot to mention this in the thing so if there's a way for me to prove it's me lemme know) [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 20:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:My only suggestion, is that you only need the "(from)". Or call it "(from)›", perhaps. Piece-moving notation often omits details that can be infered, so the sole/only queen that can land on d4 just needs "Qd4". But it could need the crucial starting file and/or rank, such as "Q6d4", if there are multiple queens that could get to d4.
:Every proper board-slide ''must'' have the "(to)" that was the last slide's "(from)", or the initial choice of starting-hole, so you just need to know which of the 2-4 neighbours, of the gap, you're moving into it (and that will become the new gap).
:And, with the suggestion (up there) that the first gap is initially created by only removing from a complete board any ''unoccupied'' 2x2 candidate, you could notate that instead as "(from)»" to describe the removal. ''Unless'' there's only one "uncamped" sub-board available, when "»" might be considered sufficient record, with the other 15 locations being irremovable at that point. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 03:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
:That sounds good, I agree that probably just "(from)>" is good for the tile, and "(from)»" for the initial removed tile. Maybe the equivalent FEN notation could be "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 Zu" (which is my suggestion for the starting position and seems to be what Randall has as the starting position). [[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 19:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So how would this move be rated? Is it a blunder, is it brilliant, or is it something inbetween? Can we even really know right now, without any history of this specific variant being played? [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 06:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
:I'm looking into it and it would be possible to set up Elo ratings for this style of chess as Elo ratings can be created for any zero-sum game. For figuring out blunders and others, that's subjective and when calculated is calculated through engines (commonly stockfish) so until someone adds support for slide chess (that's what I'm calling it as well as calling it X3139 chess) to stockfish or another engine we won't know.

Okay, I have finished my initial version. Note that it does not have any sort of move validation. To move a tile, select any square in a tile in which you have at least one piece and then select any part of the empty tile. https://github.com/Aversefun/x3139-chess https://x3139.trustworthysources.xyz.

Talk:3139: Chess Variant

2025-09-10T19:01:15Z

AverseABFun:

I should add support for playing this to my WIP chess library.
[[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 21:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel nerdsniped by this one, and I'm not even into chess. Should you either slide a tile or move a piece in your turn, or should you do both, or should you move a piece on your turn and slide a tile on your opponent's turn? Also, should it disallow sliding the board back to its immediately previous state, to avoid the back-and-forth situation on the title text (but would still allow moving in circles)? Which would be more fair, and reduce the chance of draws? So many questions... [[Special:Contributions/185.81.126.164|185.81.126.164]] 22:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:I have another, but related, question about the sliding, on the assumption of it being "move or slide", each turn: Do you ''have'' to fully move a tile, or may you half-move it? It would give the opponent only the chance to either complete or reverse the 'slide', if they found it tactically more advantageous to do either (would depend upon which pieces, of either side, were 'loaded' on the 2x2 as it moved; and/or perhaps which through-paths were enabled/disconnected for each slider-position; and a half-move completed by the opposing player is effectively a 'free slide'-then-move for the original player, if not accountsd for in other ways). But, if the opposing player chooses (or is forced; perhaps from 3-repeat/5-repeat consequences, or even due to potential "discovered check" exposures?) not to complete/reverse the half-slide, then does the loading/unloading any bishop upon the half-moved 2x2 (with the black/white chequerboard temporarily misaligned in the vicinity) give it an opportunity to change which shade of diagonals are its 'home'?
::Yes, it'd be simpler (relatively!) to just require it to be whole-tile (2x2-square) sliding, but it'd be more ''interesting'' to consider the (otherwise valid) half-disjointed positions. Especially insofar as it works for the combined bishopry on the board! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.63|82.132.238.63]] 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:::If the opponent is allowed any way to make the bishop leave its designated color then I am allowed to blast them with holy water for their sins[[Special:Contributions/46.144.8.194|46.144.8.194]] 11:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Hooooookay. If 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 , it's Black's move in canonical chess. For the position shown in this variant, White would have to be allowed to move a piece and a sliding section: 3. d4 & ef34>gh34, Black to move. Why White would use the extra move to double down on surrendering the center of the board, sacrificing the gambit pawn for no apparent benefit, is beyond me. At best, this is taking hypermodernism to incomprehensible extreFOOOOOOOOM. Ow ... [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553|2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553]] 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: A clarification on moving in circles. The draw by repetition rule causes a draw when a position on the board is repeated 3 times at ''any point'' during the game. Thus, moving tiles in circles would cause a draw. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 12:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

:: Couldn't this be black beginning their turn by moving a tile? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: What is the starting position of the tiles? Can ranged pieces pass over the “gap”? Can you slide a row of tiles at once or only one? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8|2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8]] 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Can that black pawn advance straight to the tile in front of the king or is it stuck until the gap is filled? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: If the sliding number puzzle idea was taken to its logical(!) conclusion, you would set up the board first and then randomise the tiles, which would result in some... interesting starting positions. If you did this, would it be possible for either, or both, of the players to be in checkmate at the start of the game? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps the most balanced starting position would be a complete board, with removing an unoccupied tile (once only) being one possible move.[[Special:Contributions/196.245.54.177|196.245.54.177]] 05:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How long do you think it will be until someone actually implements this? [[Special:Contributions/206.193.5.5|206.193.5.5]] 23:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
: Buddy I am working on it [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 03:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Hope you make a version that allows En Passant with a pawn that had the tile slide --[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811|2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811]] 05:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we specify positions for the transcript or do we just say "scotch opening"[[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

Could you just slide yourself out of ladder checks then? {{unsigned ip|108.211.178.78|03:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)}}

This reminds me of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUVVpB7QdbQ Twist and slide cube]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a pretty awesome board game somewhat similar to this concept already exists called '''The Amazing Labyrinth'''. '''[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1219/labyrinth Listing on BoardGameGeek] / [https://www.ravensburger.us/en-US/products/games/family-games/labyrinth-26448 Listing on Ravensburger website] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(board_game) Wikipedia page].''' — [[User:Lheydon|Lheydon]] ([[User talk:Lheydon|talk]]) 05:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems highly reminiscent of something that Ralph Betza of Chess Variants Dot Org would have created. I can basically outline the rule set that he would have used for games like this:
# A move that undoes what the other player just did is not allowed.
# A move of that does not alter anything other than the position of the hole is not allowed.
# Riders (R, B, Q) cannot cross the gap. Leapers (N) may jump across the gap. A piece moving diagonally may cross a vertex if there are three or more actually present squares touching that vertex.
# Pawns are simply stuck if they are not on rank 8 and there is no square in front of them.
# Moving the hole does not move the piece, so castling rights of a Rook is not affected by moving.
# Moving the hole counts as a move, so if you had en passant rights beforehand you lose it.
# Notation would be to pretend the hole is a piece, perhaps using the fake piece H and taking the square closest to a8 as its nominal square, so for the move depicted you'd write, e.g. 1. Hg4.

I cannot find something '''exactly''' identical to this idea, but I certainly recall a "Subway chess" of some sort (not written by Betza) where there is a blob of squares in the middle of the board and you can move the train left and right in lieu of moving a piece. And Betza did write [https://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/earthquake.html Earthquake Chess], which is this game but with a different thing to slide. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:When I was considering the "riders and leapers" issue, I couldn't thing of a possible instance of "Leapers (N) may jump across the gap" where the move of two in one orthogonal and one in the other (where the mid-move 'landed' on 'space') could not be performed as first the one ''then'' the two (the mid-move being on a non-'space'). Just as it doesn't matter normally whether either, both ''or'' none mid-move squares are occupied by other pieces, and it affects neither Knight or mid-spottee piece in any way, though a 'long knight'-type fairy-piece ({±3x ±1y}, or vice-versa) might be affected by the same 'initial/final ride' being restricted. Similarly thinking of it as moving one square orthogonally then (continuing, rather than reversing) one square diagonally can be also one diagonal then an orthogonal (being just one of the components of the diagonal).
:Of course, some people may think of knights as always 2-then-1 ''or'' orth-then-diag (or vice-versa, in either case) and handwave away the possible 'mid-jump' occupant this might involve. But mid-jump 'barriers' are still always ignored (even if on any/all 'tracks' that a moving knight might use), so unavoidable mid-jump voids would need explicitly to be defined as different to the ability to ignore the more mundane sitation of a piece being 'inconveniently' where any knight needs to transition via. (It wouldn't even need the edge-skimming diagonality rule, which I appreciate, but might be more simply defined that any other square which forms part or all of the movement in that direction must be free. Or, for the destination, an opposing piece which may be captured.)
:But whether there are prior "fairy boards" with holes in, that specify explicit limits to a knight's leaping-movs over the gaps, I don't know.
:I had thought to take a look at [[3036: Chess Zoo]] and derive Randall's philosophy regarding 'knight-permeable' barriers, there. But there seem no ''obviously'' intentional selectively-blocking 'cage walls' (i.e. a knight could jump from A to B, with B as a mere token open square, but travelling from B to A, with rotated "L"-route, would involve a token blocking-square instead). There's at least one knight who could make a single-move transition that would be impossibly in reverse (or would be impossible, but have been possible in reverse), given a certain limitation assumption. But it can progress between the two by multiple other (openly valid) leaps and so there's no obviously intended limitation that could be assumed to be invoked.
:Apart from that, I like the castling 'allowance', but does it mean that a castle and/or king that has slid-but-not-moved must then invoke it by the king moving two steps from its (possibly slid-to) initial position towards the castle's (possibly slid-to) initial position, by whatever orthogonal and/or diagonal steps are deemed necessary and valid to do so, and then the castle placed upon the intermediate king-step? Trivial for fully orthogonal (presuming that kings aren't asked to castle 'rankways', either way, when the castle involved is actually displaced directly 'filewards'), ''possibly'' trivial for fully diagonal (assuming that it's not further that it's "the major orthogonal separation" that the king's steps are constrained to, or preferentially by rank when it could be either?), but gets a bit more complicated if it's a more uneven diagonal with no 'integer' solution to each {X,Y}-step (first king-step must be the move that least deviates from the diagonal, second king-step must be to deviate least ''either'' from the original diagonal ''or'' the new one ''or'' the two identical steps taken must be the two-step (between the 2*orth and 2*diag transitions) that deviates least from the initial diagonal?).
:Also wondering what if the sliding-squares bring them unusually close. An example (sticking to just the home rank, for the sake of description, except for any necessary slides that transitioned us there) would be to go from R...KB.R =by sliding=> R.KB...R, say, then =by castling=> KR.B...R; or even via a slid rearrangement, KBR....R basic setup, but then moving the bishop to allow .RK....R, or also sending away the 'near'-rook to allow a slightly different .RK..... result.
:With the exception of a combination 'knight-move' by the king (in the manner of a diagonal displacement forcing an orthogonal+diagonal ''or'' diagonal+orthogonal two-step), the rules for no attack being upon any of the king's positions probably don't need considering further than merely checking the sole path over which the king must clearly shuffle. But if the square over which the king first needs to move is a choice between two intermediates, it could be a choice between one attacked/occupied/void square and another that is clear and not missing. Then the only correct choice (and the spot upon which the castle shall be transfered to) must be compatible with the diagonality-rule/-freedom for establishing the precise motions made during the shuffle.
:Obviously a lot of open questions there. Perhaps unnecessarily so, once some of the earlier issues are answered and thus provide obvious precedent and disambiguation to much of the remaining indecisive uncertainty. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Mr Betza has a bunch of helpful pointers for these as well. He's quite prolific and most importantly all his games hang together well, which is why I take to him as basically the authority in how Chess-like games should behave.
::* With Castlingmost Chess we interpret a castling piece to be moved in such a way that the King moves to the midpoint of the locations of the starting two pieces – rounding away from its starting point if that's between squares – and then moving the Rook to the other side. Along with FIDE rules stating that Rooks may only castle if they are on the same rank as the King this basically handles all cases. In particular, a castling move with an adjacent K and R would simply have the two pieces trade places.
::* The rules of FIDE Chess specify that Knights move to one of the up to eight closest squares that is not the same rank, file or diagonal as its starting square. This sidesteps all concerns about whether or not a Knight ''passes through'' any square or not and renders any idea of "jumping" moot. In fairy chess though it is generally understood to be orthogonal first, then diagonal, I presume due to the analogous piece in Chinese chess being hobbled at this square specifically. In any case a leaper being able to jump over spaces where there is no square is a frequent feature of Chess variants and so putting in the rule just sets it in easily. Balance-wise it gives Knights a chance at navigating tight spaces without being trapped. UX-wise it just preëmpts any awkward questions about what is blocking a Knight's path and having to relitigate it every time someone makes a slightly controversial move. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 16:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How would one handle the board gap and pieces jumping into it/moving through it? Which side has advantage based on gap location? I think slide and move (order to be determined). Move/slide as a combined step would be interesting for rook/bishop/queen/horse calculaitons. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.45|163.116.254.45]] 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC) psyllix

Tile grid and algebraic notation - Proposal for the notation:

* Tile grid:

--------------------
s| Ws | Xs | Ys | Zs |
--------------------
t| Wt | Xt | Yt | Zt |
--------------------
u| Wu | Xu | Yu | Zu |
--------------------
v| Wv | Xv | Yv | Zv |
--------------------
W X Y Z

* Algebraic notation for moving tiles:

(from)>(to)

Ex: Yu>Zu

(also, note: logged into my account of [[User/AverseABFun]], yes I forgot to mention this in the thing so if there's a way for me to prove it's me lemme know) [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 20:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:My only suggestion, is that you only need the "(from)". Or call it "(from)›", perhaps. Piece-moving notation often omits details that can be infered, so the sole/only queen that can land on d4 just needs "Qd4". But it could need the crucial starting file and/or rank, such as "Q6d4", if there are multiple queens that could get to d4.
:Every proper board-slide ''must'' have the "(to)" that was the last slide's "(from)", or the initial choice of starting-hole, so you just need to know which of the 2-4 neighbours, of the gap, you're moving into it (and that will become the new gap).
:And, with the suggestion (up there) that the first gap is initially created by only removing from a complete board any ''unoccupied'' 2x2 candidate, you could notate that instead as "(from)»" to describe the removal. ''Unless'' there's only one "uncamped" sub-board available, when "»" might be considered sufficient record, with the other 15 locations being irremovable at that point. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 03:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
:That sounds good, I agree that probably just "(from)>" is good for the tile, and "(from)»" for the initial removed tile. Maybe the equivalent FEN notation could be "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1 Zu" (which is my suggestion for the starting position and seems to be what Randall has as the starting position). [[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 19:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

So how would this move be rated? Is it a blunder, is it brilliant, or is it something inbetween? Can we even really know right now, without any history of this specific variant being played? [[User:Maplestrip|Maplestrip]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|talk]]) 06:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished my initial version. Note that it does not have any sort of move validation. To move a tile, select any square in a tile in which you have at least one piece and then select any part of the empty tile. https://github.com/Aversefun/x3139-chess https://x3139.trustworthysources.xyz.

Talk:3139: Chess Variant

2025-09-09T20:17:54Z

AverseABFun: /* Tile grid and algebraic notation */

I should add support for playing this to my WIP chess library.
[[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 21:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel nerdsniped by this one, and I'm not even into chess. Should you either slide a tile or move a piece in your turn, or should you do both, or should you move a piece on your turn and slide a tile on your opponent's turn? Also, should it disallow sliding the board back to its immediately previous state, to avoid the back-and-forth situation on the title text (but would still allow moving in circles)? Which would be more fair, and reduce the chance of draws? So many questions... [[Special:Contributions/185.81.126.164|185.81.126.164]] 22:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:I have another, but related, question about the sliding, on the assumption of it being "move or slide", each turn: Do you ''have'' to fully move a tile, or may you half-move it? It would give the opponent only the chance to either complete or reverse the 'slide', if they found it tactically more advantageous to do either (would depend upon which pieces, of either side, were 'loaded' on the 2x2 as it moved; and/or perhaps which through-paths were enabled/disconnected for each slider-position; and a half-move completed by the opposing player is effectively a 'free slide'-then-move for the original player, if not accountsd for in other ways). But, if the opposing player chooses (or is forced; perhaps from 3-repeat/5-repeat consequences, or even due to potential "discovered check" exposures?) not to complete/reverse the half-slide, then does the loading/unloading any bishop upon the half-moved 2x2 (with the black/white chequerboard temporarily misaligned in the vicinity) give it an opportunity to change which shade of diagonals are its 'home'?
::Yes, it'd be simpler (relatively!) to just require it to be whole-tile (2x2-square) sliding, but it'd be more ''interesting'' to consider the (otherwise valid) half-disjointed positions. Especially insofar as it works for the combined bishopry on the board! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.63|82.132.238.63]] 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:::If the opponent is allowed any way to make the bishop leave its designated color then I am allowed to blast them with holy water for their sins[[Special:Contributions/46.144.8.194|46.144.8.194]] 11:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Hooooookay. If 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 , it's Black's move in canonical chess. For the position shown in this variant, White would have to be allowed to move a piece and a sliding section: 3. d4 & ef34>gh34, Black to move. Why White would use the extra move to double down on surrendering the center of the board, sacrificing the gambit pawn for no apparent benefit, is beyond me. At best, this is taking hypermodernism to incomprehensible extreFOOOOOOOOM. Ow ... [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553|2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553]] 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: A clarification on moving in circles. The draw by repetition rule causes a draw when a position on the board is repeated 3 times at ''any point'' during the game. Thus, moving tiles in circles would cause a draw. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 12:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

:: Couldn't this be black beginning their turn by moving a tile? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: What is the starting position of the tiles? Can ranged pieces pass over the “gap”? Can you slide a row of tiles at once or only one? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8|2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8]] 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Can that black pawn advance straight to the tile in front of the king or is it stuck until the gap is filled? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: If the sliding number puzzle idea was taken to its logical(!) conclusion, you would set up the board first and then randomise the tiles, which would result in some... interesting starting positions. If you did this, would it be possible for either, or both, of the players to be in checkmate at the start of the game? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps the most balanced starting position would be a complete board, with removing an unoccupied tile (once only) being one possible move.[[Special:Contributions/196.245.54.177|196.245.54.177]] 05:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How long do you think it will be until someone actually implements this? [[Special:Contributions/206.193.5.5|206.193.5.5]] 23:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
: Buddy I am working on it [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 03:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Hope you make a version that allows En Passant with a pawn that had the tile slide --[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811|2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811]] 05:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we specify positions for the transcript or do we just say "scotch opening"[[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

Could you just slide yourself out of ladder checks then? {{unsigned ip|108.211.178.78|03:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)}}

This reminds me of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUVVpB7QdbQ Twist and slide cube]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a pretty awesome board game somewhat similar to this concept already exists called '''The Amazing Labyrinth'''. '''[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1219/labyrinth Listing on BoardGameGeek] / [https://www.ravensburger.us/en-US/products/games/family-games/labyrinth-26448 Listing on Ravensburger website] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(board_game) Wikipedia page].''' — [[User:Lheydon|Lheydon]] ([[User talk:Lheydon|talk]]) 05:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems highly reminiscent of something that Ralph Betza of Chess Variants Dot Org would have created. I can basically outline the rule set that he would have used for games like this:
# A move that undoes what the other player just did is not allowed.
# A move of that does not alter anything other than the position of the hole is not allowed.
# Riders (R, B, Q) cannot cross the gap. Leapers (N) may jump across the gap. A piece moving diagonally may cross a vertex if there are three or more actually present squares touching that vertex.
# Pawns are simply stuck if they are not on rank 8 and there is no square in front of them.
# Moving the hole does not move the piece, so castling rights of a Rook is not affected by moving.
# Moving the hole counts as a move, so if you had en passant rights beforehand you lose it.
# Notation would be to pretend the hole is a piece, perhaps using the fake piece H and taking the square closest to a8 as its nominal square, so for the move depicted you'd write, e.g. 1. Hg4.

I cannot find something '''exactly''' identical to this idea, but I certainly recall a "Subway chess" of some sort (not written by Betza) where there is a blob of squares in the middle of the board and you can move the train left and right in lieu of moving a piece. And Betza did write [https://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/earthquake.html Earthquake Chess], which is this game but with a different thing to slide. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:When I was considering the "riders and leapers" issue, I couldn't thing of a possible instance of "Leapers (N) may jump across the gap" where the move of two in one orthogonal and one in the other (where the mid-move 'landed' on 'space') could not be performed as first the one ''then'' the two (the mid-move being on a non-'space'). Just as it doesn't matter normally whether either, both ''or'' none mid-move squares are occupied by other pieces, and it affects neither Knight or mid-spottee piece in any way, though a 'long knight'-type fairy-piece ({±3x ±1y}, or vice-versa) might be affected by the same 'initial/final ride' being restricted. Similarly thinking of it as moving one square orthogonally then (continuing, rather than reversing) one square diagonally can be also one diagonal then an orthogonal (being just one of the components of the diagonal).
:Of course, some people may think of knights as always 2-then-1 ''or'' orth-then-diag (or vice-versa, in either case) and handwave away the possible 'mid-jump' occupant this might involve. But mid-jump 'barriers' are still always ignored (even if on any/all 'tracks' that a moving knight might use), so unavoidable mid-jump voids would need explicitly to be defined as different to the ability to ignore the more mundane sitation of a piece being 'inconveniently' where any knight needs to transition via. (It wouldn't even need the edge-skimming diagonality rule, which I appreciate, but might be more simply defined that any other square which forms part or all of the movement in that direction must be free. Or, for the destination, an opposing piece which may be captured.)
:But whether there are prior "fairy boards" with holes in, that specify explicit limits to a knight's leaping-movs over the gaps, I don't know.
:I had thought to take a look at [[3036: Chess Zoo]] and derive Randall's philosophy regarding 'knight-permeable' barriers, there. But there seem no ''obviously'' intentional selectively-blocking 'cage walls' (i.e. a knight could jump from A to B, with B as a mere token open square, but travelling from B to A, with rotated "L"-route, would involve a token blocking-square instead). There's at least one knight who could make a single-move transition that would be impossibly in reverse (or would be impossible, but have been possible in reverse), given a certain limitation assumption. But it can progress between the two by multiple other (openly valid) leaps and so there's no obviously intended limitation that could be assumed to be invoked.
:Apart from that, I like the castling 'allowance', but does it mean that a castle and/or king that has slid-but-not-moved must then invoke it by the king moving two steps from its (possibly slid-to) initial position towards the castle's (possibly slid-to) initial position, by whatever orthogonal and/or diagonal steps are deemed necessary and valid to do so, and then the castle placed upon the intermediate king-step? Trivial for fully orthogonal (presuming that kings aren't asked to castle 'rankways', either way, when the castle involved is actually displaced directly 'filewards'), ''possibly'' trivial for fully diagonal (assuming that it's not further that it's "the major orthogonal separation" that the king's steps are constrained to, or preferentially by rank when it could be either?), but gets a bit more complicated if it's a more uneven diagonal with no 'integer' solution to each {X,Y}-step (first king-step must be the move that least deviates from the diagonal, second king-step must be to deviate least ''either'' from the original diagonal ''or'' the new one ''or'' the two identical steps taken must be the two-step (between the 2*orth and 2*diag transitions) that deviates least from the initial diagonal?).
:Also wondering what if the sliding-squares bring them unusually close. An example (sticking to just the home rank, for the sake of description, except for any necessary slides that transitioned us there) would be to go from R...KB.R =by sliding=> R.KB...R, say, then =by castling=> KR.B...R; or even via a slid rearrangement, KBR....R basic setup, but then moving the bishop to allow .RK....R, or also sending away the 'near'-rook to allow a slightly different .RK..... result.
:With the exception of a combination 'knight-move' by the king (in the manner of a diagonal displacement forcing an orthogonal+diagonal ''or'' diagonal+orthogonal two-step), the rules for no attack being upon any of the king's positions probably don't need considering further than merely checking the sole path over which the king must clearly shuffle. But if the square over which the king first needs to move is a choice between two intermediates, it could be a choice between one attacked/occupied/void square and another that is clear and not missing. Then the only correct choice (and the spot upon which the castle shall be transfered to) must be compatible with the diagonality-rule/-freedom for establishing the precise motions made during the shuffle.
:Obviously a lot of open questions there. Perhaps unnecessarily so, once some of the earlier issues are answered and thus provide obvious precedent and disambiguation to much of the remaining indecisive uncertainty. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Mr Betza has a bunch of helpful pointers for these as well. He's quite prolific and most importantly all his games hang together well, which is why I take to him as basically the authority in how Chess-like games should behave.
::* With Castlingmost Chess we interpret a castling piece to be moved in such a way that the King moves to the midpoint of the locations of the starting two pieces – rounding away from its starting point if that's between squares – and then moving the Rook to the other side. Along with FIDE rules stating that Rooks may only castle if they are on the same rank as the King this basically handles all cases. In particular, a castling move with an adjacent K and R would simply have the two pieces trade places.
::* The rules of FIDE Chess specify that Knights move to one of the up to eight closest squares that is not the same rank, file or diagonal as its starting square. This sidesteps all concerns about whether or not a Knight ''passes through'' any square or not and renders any idea of "jumping" moot. In fairy chess though it is generally understood to be orthogonal first, then diagonal, I presume due to the analogous piece in Chinese chess being hobbled at this square specifically. In any case a leaper being able to jump over spaces where there is no square is a frequent feature of Chess variants and so putting in the rule just sets it in easily. Balance-wise it gives Knights a chance at navigating tight spaces without being trapped. UX-wise it just preëmpts any awkward questions about what is blocking a Knight's path and having to relitigate it every time someone makes a slightly controversial move. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 16:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How would one handle the board gap and pieces jumping into it/moving through it? Which side has advantage based on gap location? I think slide and move (order to be determined). Move/slide as a combined step would be interesting for rook/bishop/queen/horse calculaitons. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.45|163.116.254.45]] 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC) psyllix

== Tile grid and algebraic notation ==

Proposal for the notation:

* Tile grid:

--------------------
s| Ws | Xs | Ys | Zs |
--------------------
t| Wt | Xt | Yt | Zt |
--------------------
u| Wu | Xu | Yu | Zu |
--------------------
v| Wv | Xv | Yv | Zv |
--------------------
W X Y Z

* Algebraic notation for moving tiles:

(from)>(to)

Ex: Yu>Zu

(also, note: logged into my account of [[User/AverseABFun]], yes I forgot to mention this in the thing so if there's a way for me to prove it's me lemme know)

[[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 20:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3139: Chess Variant

2025-09-09T20:16:45Z

AverseABFun: /* Tile grid and algebraic notation */

I should add support for playing this to my WIP chess library.
[[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 21:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I feel nerdsniped by this one, and I'm not even into chess. Should you either slide a tile or move a piece in your turn, or should you do both, or should you move a piece on your turn and slide a tile on your opponent's turn? Also, should it disallow sliding the board back to its immediately previous state, to avoid the back-and-forth situation on the title text (but would still allow moving in circles)? Which would be more fair, and reduce the chance of draws? So many questions... [[Special:Contributions/185.81.126.164|185.81.126.164]] 22:00, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
:I have another, but related, question about the sliding, on the assumption of it being "move or slide", each turn: Do you ''have'' to fully move a tile, or may you half-move it? It would give the opponent only the chance to either complete or reverse the 'slide', if they found it tactically more advantageous to do either (would depend upon which pieces, of either side, were 'loaded' on the 2x2 as it moved; and/or perhaps which through-paths were enabled/disconnected for each slider-position; and a half-move completed by the opposing player is effectively a 'free slide'-then-move for the original player, if not accountsd for in other ways). But, if the opposing player chooses (or is forced; perhaps from 3-repeat/5-repeat consequences, or even due to potential "discovered check" exposures?) not to complete/reverse the half-slide, then does the loading/unloading any bishop upon the half-moved 2x2 (with the black/white chequerboard temporarily misaligned in the vicinity) give it an opportunity to change which shade of diagonals are its 'home'?
::Yes, it'd be simpler (relatively!) to just require it to be whole-tile (2x2-square) sliding, but it'd be more ''interesting'' to consider the (otherwise valid) half-disjointed positions. Especially insofar as it works for the combined bishopry on the board! [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.63|82.132.238.63]] 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:::If the opponent is allowed any way to make the bishop leave its designated color then I am allowed to blast them with holy water for their sins[[Special:Contributions/46.144.8.194|46.144.8.194]] 11:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Hooooookay. If 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 , it's Black's move in canonical chess. For the position shown in this variant, White would have to be allowed to move a piece and a sliding section: 3. d4 & ef34>gh34, Black to move. Why White would use the extra move to double down on surrendering the center of the board, sacrificing the gambit pawn for no apparent benefit, is beyond me. At best, this is taking hypermodernism to incomprehensible extreFOOOOOOOOM. Ow ... [[Special:Contributions/2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553|2605:59C8:160:DB08:816E:805:44F1:B553]] 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: A clarification on moving in circles. The draw by repetition rule causes a draw when a position on the board is repeated 3 times at ''any point'' during the game. Thus, moving tiles in circles would cause a draw. [[User:BobcatInABox|BobcatInABox]] ([[User talk:BobcatInABox|talk]]) 12:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

:: Couldn't this be black beginning their turn by moving a tile? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: What is the starting position of the tiles? Can ranged pieces pass over the “gap”? Can you slide a row of tiles at once or only one? [[Special:Contributions/2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8|2A02:AB88:7815:7E80:E212:8D1:BCBB:7DD8]] 01:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Can that black pawn advance straight to the tile in front of the king or is it stuck until the gap is filled? [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F|2603:8001:0:46DC:117A:208A:40D2:9A5F]] 06:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: If the sliding number puzzle idea was taken to its logical(!) conclusion, you would set up the board first and then randomise the tiles, which would result in some... interesting starting positions. If you did this, would it be possible for either, or both, of the players to be in checkmate at the start of the game? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
: Perhaps the most balanced starting position would be a complete board, with removing an unoccupied tile (once only) being one possible move.[[Special:Contributions/196.245.54.177|196.245.54.177]] 05:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How long do you think it will be until someone actually implements this? [[Special:Contributions/206.193.5.5|206.193.5.5]] 23:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
: Buddy I am working on it [[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 03:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Hope you make a version that allows En Passant with a pawn that had the tile slide --[[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811|2604:3D09:84:4000:9CC4:9BCE:BD01:C811]] 05:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we specify positions for the transcript or do we just say "scotch opening"[[User:Mathmaster|Mathmaster]] ([[User talk:Mathmaster|talk]])

Could you just slide yourself out of ladder checks then? {{unsigned ip|108.211.178.78|03:06, 9 September 2025 (UTC)}}

This reminds me of the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUVVpB7QdbQ Twist and slide cube]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 04:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested, a pretty awesome board game somewhat similar to this concept already exists called '''The Amazing Labyrinth'''. '''[https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1219/labyrinth Listing on BoardGameGeek] / [https://www.ravensburger.us/en-US/products/games/family-games/labyrinth-26448 Listing on Ravensburger website] / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(board_game) Wikipedia page].''' — [[User:Lheydon|Lheydon]] ([[User talk:Lheydon|talk]]) 05:08, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems highly reminiscent of something that Ralph Betza of Chess Variants Dot Org would have created. I can basically outline the rule set that he would have used for games like this:
# A move that undoes what the other player just did is not allowed.
# A move of that does not alter anything other than the position of the hole is not allowed.
# Riders (R, B, Q) cannot cross the gap. Leapers (N) may jump across the gap. A piece moving diagonally may cross a vertex if there are three or more actually present squares touching that vertex.
# Pawns are simply stuck if they are not on rank 8 and there is no square in front of them.
# Moving the hole does not move the piece, so castling rights of a Rook is not affected by moving.
# Moving the hole counts as a move, so if you had en passant rights beforehand you lose it.
# Notation would be to pretend the hole is a piece, perhaps using the fake piece H and taking the square closest to a8 as its nominal square, so for the move depicted you'd write, e.g. 1. Hg4.

I cannot find something '''exactly''' identical to this idea, but I certainly recall a "Subway chess" of some sort (not written by Betza) where there is a blob of squares in the middle of the board and you can move the train left and right in lieu of moving a piece. And Betza did write [https://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/earthquake.html Earthquake Chess], which is this game but with a different thing to slide. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:When I was considering the "riders and leapers" issue, I couldn't thing of a possible instance of "Leapers (N) may jump across the gap" where the move of two in one orthogonal and one in the other (where the mid-move 'landed' on 'space') could not be performed as first the one ''then'' the two (the mid-move being on a non-'space'). Just as it doesn't matter normally whether either, both ''or'' none mid-move squares are occupied by other pieces, and it affects neither Knight or mid-spottee piece in any way, though a 'long knight'-type fairy-piece ({±3x ±1y}, or vice-versa) might be affected by the same 'initial/final ride' being restricted. Similarly thinking of it as moving one square orthogonally then (continuing, rather than reversing) one square diagonally can be also one diagonal then an orthogonal (being just one of the components of the diagonal).
:Of course, some people may think of knights as always 2-then-1 ''or'' orth-then-diag (or vice-versa, in either case) and handwave away the possible 'mid-jump' occupant this might involve. But mid-jump 'barriers' are still always ignored (even if on any/all 'tracks' that a moving knight might use), so unavoidable mid-jump voids would need explicitly to be defined as different to the ability to ignore the more mundane sitation of a piece being 'inconveniently' where any knight needs to transition via. (It wouldn't even need the edge-skimming diagonality rule, which I appreciate, but might be more simply defined that any other square which forms part or all of the movement in that direction must be free. Or, for the destination, an opposing piece which may be captured.)
:But whether there are prior "fairy boards" with holes in, that specify explicit limits to a knight's leaping-movs over the gaps, I don't know.
:I had thought to take a look at [[3036: Chess Zoo]] and derive Randall's philosophy regarding 'knight-permeable' barriers, there. But there seem no ''obviously'' intentional selectively-blocking 'cage walls' (i.e. a knight could jump from A to B, with B as a mere token open square, but travelling from B to A, with rotated "L"-route, would involve a token blocking-square instead). There's at least one knight who could make a single-move transition that would be impossibly in reverse (or would be impossible, but have been possible in reverse), given a certain limitation assumption. But it can progress between the two by multiple other (openly valid) leaps and so there's no obviously intended limitation that could be assumed to be invoked.
:Apart from that, I like the castling 'allowance', but does it mean that a castle and/or king that has slid-but-not-moved must then invoke it by the king moving two steps from its (possibly slid-to) initial position towards the castle's (possibly slid-to) initial position, by whatever orthogonal and/or diagonal steps are deemed necessary and valid to do so, and then the castle placed upon the intermediate king-step? Trivial for fully orthogonal (presuming that kings aren't asked to castle 'rankways', either way, when the castle involved is actually displaced directly 'filewards'), ''possibly'' trivial for fully diagonal (assuming that it's not further that it's "the major orthogonal separation" that the king's steps are constrained to, or preferentially by rank when it could be either?), but gets a bit more complicated if it's a more uneven diagonal with no 'integer' solution to each {X,Y}-step (first king-step must be the move that least deviates from the diagonal, second king-step must be to deviate least ''either'' from the original diagonal ''or'' the new one ''or'' the two identical steps taken must be the two-step (between the 2*orth and 2*diag transitions) that deviates least from the initial diagonal?).
:Also wondering what if the sliding-squares bring them unusually close. An example (sticking to just the home rank, for the sake of description, except for any necessary slides that transitioned us there) would be to go from R...KB.R =by sliding=> R.KB...R, say, then =by castling=> KR.B...R; or even via a slid rearrangement, KBR....R basic setup, but then moving the bishop to allow .RK....R, or also sending away the 'near'-rook to allow a slightly different .RK..... result.
:With the exception of a combination 'knight-move' by the king (in the manner of a diagonal displacement forcing an orthogonal+diagonal ''or'' diagonal+orthogonal two-step), the rules for no attack being upon any of the king's positions probably don't need considering further than merely checking the sole path over which the king must clearly shuffle. But if the square over which the king first needs to move is a choice between two intermediates, it could be a choice between one attacked/occupied/void square and another that is clear and not missing. Then the only correct choice (and the spot upon which the castle shall be transfered to) must be compatible with the diagonality-rule/-freedom for establishing the precise motions made during the shuffle.
:Obviously a lot of open questions there. Perhaps unnecessarily so, once some of the earlier issues are answered and thus provide obvious precedent and disambiguation to much of the remaining indecisive uncertainty. ;) [[Special:Contributions/82.132.238.27|82.132.238.27]] 15:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
:: Mr Betza has a bunch of helpful pointers for these as well. He's quite prolific and most importantly all his games hang together well, which is why I take to him as basically the authority in how Chess-like games should behave.
::* With Castlingmost Chess we interpret a castling piece to be moved in such a way that the King moves to the midpoint of the locations of the starting two pieces – rounding away from its starting point if that's between squares – and then moving the Rook to the other side. Along with FIDE rules stating that Rooks may only castle if they are on the same rank as the King this basically handles all cases. In particular, a castling move with an adjacent K and R would simply have the two pieces trade places.
::* The rules of FIDE Chess specify that Knights move to one of the up to eight closest squares that is not the same rank, file or diagonal as its starting square. This sidesteps all concerns about whether or not a Knight ''passes through'' any square or not and renders any idea of "jumping" moot. In fairy chess though it is generally understood to be orthogonal first, then diagonal, I presume due to the analogous piece in Chinese chess being hobbled at this square specifically. In any case a leaper being able to jump over spaces where there is no square is a frequent feature of Chess variants and so putting in the rule just sets it in easily. Balance-wise it gives Knights a chance at navigating tight spaces without being trapped. UX-wise it just preëmpts any awkward questions about what is blocking a Knight's path and having to relitigate it every time someone makes a slightly controversial move. [[User:Isoraqathedh|Isoraqathedh]] ([[User talk:Isoraqathedh|talk]]) 16:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

How would one handle the board gap and pieces jumping into it/moving through it? Which side has advantage based on gap location? I think slide and move (order to be determined). Move/slide as a combined step would be interesting for rook/bishop/queen/horse calculaitons. [[Special:Contributions/163.116.254.45|163.116.254.45]] 14:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC) psyllix

== Tile grid and algebraic notation ==

Proposal for the notation:

* Tile grid:

----------------
s| Ws | Xs | Ys | Zs |
----------------
t| Wt | Xt | Yt | Zt |
----------------
u| Wu | Xu | Yu | Zu |
----------------
v| Wv | Xv | Yv | Zv |
----------------
W X Y Z

* Algebraic notation for moving tiles:

(from)>(to)

Ex: Yu>Zu

(also, note: logged into my account of [[User/AverseABFun]], yes I forgot to mention this in the thing so if there's a way for me to prove it's me lemme know)

[[Special:Contributions/73.164.32.149|73.164.32.149]] 20:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

839: Explorers

2023-01-11T04:27:14Z

AverseABFun: Removed link to the xkcd forum

{{comic
| number = 839
| date = December 27, 2010
| title = Explorers
| image = explorers.png
| titletext = We're going to have to work together to get over our hangups if we're going to learn to move on Catan's hexagonal grid. It's bad enough that we lost our crew of pawns when we passed within firing range of Battleship.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic blends {{w|board game}}s such as {{w|chess}}, {{w|The Settlers of Catan}}, and {{w|Battleship (game)|Battleship}}, with {{w|exploration}}, making possible references to {{w|space exploration}} and the {{w|Age of Discovery}}.

The typical representation of explorers has them travel from their homeland aboard a ship to unknown distant places. The travel can get very long, implying the need for food supplies on the ship; and the fact that the crew members have to live together with little room (the ship) for such a long time, with possibilities of failure, getting lost or dying for various reasons, can often lead to tensions between some of them. In the Age of Exploration the explorers were mainly sailors from Europe traveling on the sea to other continents, whereas in space exploration they are astronauts or robots from Earth traveling in space to other planets (or whatever celestial bodies), but the general concepts of exploration remain the same.

Here the explorers are two chess pieces, a knight and a bishop; they have left their "home board", presumably a full 8x8 chess board, aboard a smaller "capsule" made of a small 3x3 chess board in motion. It appears to be flying through space with some kind of miniature rocket-thruster located beneath each corner of the board, trailing exhaust gas/smoke, but the drawing is somewhat ambiguous and it could be floating in water with corner nascelles providing thrust, if it weren't for the conspicuous lack of ripples. They are apparently headed for a Settlers of Catan board, and already passed near a Battleship board, so these game boards are like islands or regions which the chess pieces explore, coming from a chess board.

Ba3, Nc3 and Ke5 are the identification of chess pieces and their respective position: Ba3 is a bishop on the A3 square, Nc3 a knight on the C3 square, and Ke5 a king on the E5 square. Chess is pretty much a representation of the structure of medieval European society (with the king and queen being the most crucial pieces, the bishops representing the somewhat powerful clergy, the knights corresponding to the armies, the rook alluding the castles, and the pawns being, as the medieval working classes, the most numerous and disposable assets); so chess pieces exploring other places, approaching the "coast of Catan", and reporting to the king ("calling Ke5"), is reminiscent of explorers from Europe who under their king's jurisdiction set sail to other continents during the Age of Exploration.

The explorers are communicating with a "{{w|Mission control center|mission control}}", which is common in space exploration. Also, an "ETA" is an {{w|estimated time of arrival}}.

In chess, the knight and the bishop have different move constraints. The knight can only move two squares horizontally and one square vertically, or two vertically and one horizontally, so on the capsule the knight explorer can only go from one corner square to a black square, or vice-versa. The bishop can only move diagonally, so this bishop is bound to move only on the white squares. The knight is also the only piece that can "jump" over other pieces, which seems to annoy the bishop, hence the "hopping around"; apparently the bishop put all the food onto the middle square, which the knight can't reach, because the knight was taunting him about his not being able to get onto a black square.

The two pieces are from the opposite chess camps (one black and the other white). This can be a reference to multinational space mission crews, where formerly opponent nations joined their efforts on space missions. But in chess it also means they can capture each other, by getting on the square where the other stands. Here, with the chess turn-by-turn gameplay, the knight won't be able to capture the bishop (except of course in case of error or dumb move), since the bishop will always be able to escape, whereas the bishop is actually one or two moves away from capturing the knight. So saying that he's "this close" to capturing him is a play on words, he is "this close" as in a few moves away, as well as "this close" as in severely annoyed and about to act on it.

Assuming it’s the bishop’s turn this capture could be accomplished by the Bishop moving to C1, there after the knight would be forced to move to either A2 or B1. The Bishop then moves to B2. The knight then must move to C1 or C3 if it moved to A2, or A3 or C3 if it moved to B1 – all valid positions from which the Bishop could capture. If it’s the knights turn, the situation is the same except the Bishop would simply move to B2 regardless of the knight move.

Finally, the title text adds two jokes. The Settlers of Catan board has an hexagonal grid, which means the chess pieces will have difficulty to move on it, since they are used to moving on a square grid. This can draw a parallel with explorers facing, in distant lands, weather conditions, wild animals, atmosphere or whatever condition, to which they are not used at all in their homeland. Battleship is a game where players send shots on the opponent's board, which is why the chess capsule received shots when it passed within firing range of a Battleship board; in pure chess style, it's the {{w|Pawn (chess)|pawns}} of the crew, the least valuable and most disposable chess pieces, who took the shots. It could also be a reference to the ''{{w|en passant}}'' chess move, where, under certain conditions, a pawn can be captured after having "passed within firing range" (so to speak) of an enemy pawn; this could explain why only the pawns were lost in passing Battleship.

==Transcript==
:[A black bishop, Ba3, and a white knight, Nc3, are on a three by three chessboard. Both are on white squares. There is a heap of supplies at b2, also a white square. The chessboard is mounted on rockets and appears to be flying through the air.]
:Ba3: Mission Control, come in. This is Ba3 on the capsule calling Ke5 on the home board. We're on track and approaching the Coast of Catan. Our ETA is—
:Nc3: Control, this is Nc3. Bishop put all our food in the center so I can't get it. I demand—
:Ba3: Control, knight will get his food back when he stops hopping around bragging about how comfy the black squares are. I swear to God, I'm ''this'' close to capturing him and completing the misson alone.

==Trivia==
*There is a misspelling of ''mission'' in the last sentence:
**''...and completing the '''misson''' alone.''

*The fact that the black King is located on e5 suggests that the chess game back on the home board is in the endgame phase, where there are few pieces left on the board and the King becomes a valuable attacking piece. Since there are so few pieces and resources back at home, this comic may therefore be a nod to common movie plots such as that of ''Interstellar'', where settlers are forced to flee to another world because of the depletion of the old.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Chess]]
[[Category:Food]]
[[Category:Board games]]

Talk:1813: Vomiting Emoji

2022-12-27T03:49:01Z

AverseABFun: Added comment

Did anyone else think of the Akatsuki member Deidara from Naruto when they saw the vomiting hand emoji? [[User:GoonPontoon|GoonPontoon]] ([[User talk:GoonPontoon|talk]]) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC) - Nope, of Ygo from Unspeakable Vault of Doom. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.118|162.158.202.118]] 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Think of the "vomiting hand" emoji as a response to the "talk to the hand" meme.

The "Vomit Comet" was not a rocket, it was the name of NASA's KC-135 aircraft which simulated weightlessness on parable flights. Given that rockets must be airtight, it is a bit strange that you could vomit out of a rocket.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.82|162.158.150.82]] 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
:You must be fun at parties.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish Randall used a vomiting face vomiting (using the vomiting modifier) or a unicorn puking rainbows (U+1F984 U+1F93F U+1F308 🦄🤢🌈). --[http://windowsfreak.de/ Björn Eberhardt] 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For those thinking of making a real proposal, it's not actually needed. You can combine any characters with the special combining character. Originally intended for languages such as arabic, it works with emoji too.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a minor edit war over citing the fact that the Moon is made of rock. I think we should just remove the citation entirely as well as the {{Citation needed}}. Should I go through with this? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 15:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:Keep "Citation Needed" -- it's the best laugh I've had all day (and references xkcd #285)
::The emoji is a Man in the Moon vomiting and "he" is made of imagination, not rock. OTOH, the moon has vomited lava in the past, but can AFAIK no longer do so [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Citation needed ref to [[285]] should only be used when a citation is needed! And of course there should not be one here --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::::What? No, Citation needed is a joke. Hence why we link to a joke, not to some page about actually needing a citation. The moon being made of rock gets "citation needed" as a joke about it actually being made of green cheese. This is exactly how Randal often uses it. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 00:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
::::Also if you need an actual citation needed, do a nice {{actual citation needed}} --[[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 03:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::The problem is, the [citation needed] is what started the edit war in the first place. [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the incomplete tag be removed? [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried making a few of these: https://github.com/WriterArtistCoder/vomit-emoji
[[User:WriterArtistCoder|WriterArtistCoder]] ([[User talk:WriterArtistCoder|talk]]) 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

;Emoji Madness?
Anyone else think that the whole set needs a complete overhaul as there are seven different co?ours of binder, but no computer mouse or a chop / steak to name a few omissions.

Also the latest iPhone set have Male and Female versions of cowboy, police, guardsman et al. With some of them the difference iis small, but in all of them the female version appears to have her moth open, whereas the male ones do not. Is this sexist? [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There ''is'' a computer mouse emoji http://emojipedia.org/three-button-mouse/ and "cut of meat" emoji http://emojipedia.org/cut-of-meat/

UNICODE is always accepting ideas for new emoji, as long as you're willing to write up a proposal proving the emoji would be useful: http://unicode.org/emoji/selection.html
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.166|162.158.102.166]] 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

;What about proposal? And I'm asking srsly.
Anyone can write and send proposal to Unicode Consortium, and I was thinking - anyone did it actually / gonna do it?
--[[User:Marsjaninzmarsa|Marsjaninzmarsa]] ([[User talk:Marsjaninzmarsa|talk]]) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

'''Barf Bold A Decorative Typeface'''
B. Kliban from 1982

[http://carsonparkdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/B-Kliban-Barf-Bold.jpg]
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.221|172.68.132.221]] 03:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
:Got that in TTF format? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

;Did Randall goof, or is it part of the joke?
Megan proposes a single emoji, "U+IF93F" as the vomit modifier. How is possible, then, that in each implementation the vomit is a different shape and location? Is it possible to create an emoji that is self-aware and reconfigures itself as needed?[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 15:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
:Yes. To cite two examples I'm familiar with: The Fitzpatrick scale skin colour modifiers (U+1F3FB through U+1F3FF) affect whatever part of the emoji (hands, faces, etc.) is considered skin; and many of the "diacritical" or "accent mark" modifiers adjust their position as needed for whatever letter they're being added to, and many of those modifiers can make tall stacks. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

;Error in the description text
The statement "emojis...aren't typically perceived as parts of text" is clearly incorrect. The entire purpose for which emojis were created is to express emotions in text (which can be difficult to convey in words); emojis are inherently part of text.

I wish I was a good enough artist to make images for the winking face vomiting. --[[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 03:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:1813: Vomiting Emoji

2022-12-27T03:46:07Z

AverseABFun: Added comment

Did anyone else think of the Akatsuki member Deidara from Naruto when they saw the vomiting hand emoji? [[User:GoonPontoon|GoonPontoon]] ([[User talk:GoonPontoon|talk]]) 17:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC) - Nope, of Ygo from Unspeakable Vault of Doom. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.118|162.158.202.118]] 22:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Think of the "vomiting hand" emoji as a response to the "talk to the hand" meme.

The "Vomit Comet" was not a rocket, it was the name of NASA's KC-135 aircraft which simulated weightlessness on parable flights. Given that rockets must be airtight, it is a bit strange that you could vomit out of a rocket.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.82|162.158.150.82]] 22:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
:You must be fun at parties.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I wish Randall used a vomiting face vomiting (using the vomiting modifier) or a unicorn puking rainbows (U+1F984 U+1F93F U+1F308 🦄🤢🌈). --[http://windowsfreak.de/ Björn Eberhardt] 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

For those thinking of making a real proposal, it's not actually needed. You can combine any characters with the special combining character. Originally intended for languages such as arabic, it works with emoji too.--[[User:Henke37|Henke37]] ([[User talk:Henke37|talk]]) 10:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be a minor edit war over citing the fact that the Moon is made of rock. I think we should just remove the citation entirely as well as the {{Citation needed}}. Should I go through with this? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 15:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:Keep "Citation Needed" -- it's the best laugh I've had all day (and references xkcd #285)
::The emoji is a Man in the Moon vomiting and "he" is made of imagination, not rock. OTOH, the moon has vomited lava in the past, but can AFAIK no longer do so [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Citation needed ref to [[285]] should only be used when a citation is needed! And of course there should not be one here --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
::::What? No, Citation needed is a joke. Hence why we link to a joke, not to some page about actually needing a citation. The moon being made of rock gets "citation needed" as a joke about it actually being made of green cheese. This is exactly how Randal often uses it. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 00:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
::The problem is, the [citation needed] is what started the edit war in the first place. [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 00:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the incomplete tag be removed? [[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 21:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I tried making a few of these: https://github.com/WriterArtistCoder/vomit-emoji
[[User:WriterArtistCoder|WriterArtistCoder]] ([[User talk:WriterArtistCoder|talk]]) 18:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

;Emoji Madness?
Anyone else think that the whole set needs a complete overhaul as there are seven different co?ours of binder, but no computer mouse or a chop / steak to name a few omissions.

Also the latest iPhone set have Male and Female versions of cowboy, police, guardsman et al. With some of them the difference iis small, but in all of them the female version appears to have her moth open, whereas the male ones do not. Is this sexist? [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There ''is'' a computer mouse emoji http://emojipedia.org/three-button-mouse/ and "cut of meat" emoji http://emojipedia.org/cut-of-meat/

UNICODE is always accepting ideas for new emoji, as long as you're willing to write up a proposal proving the emoji would be useful: http://unicode.org/emoji/selection.html
--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.166|162.158.102.166]] 02:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

;What about proposal? And I'm asking srsly.
Anyone can write and send proposal to Unicode Consortium, and I was thinking - anyone did it actually / gonna do it?
--[[User:Marsjaninzmarsa|Marsjaninzmarsa]] ([[User talk:Marsjaninzmarsa|talk]]) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

'''Barf Bold A Decorative Typeface'''
B. Kliban from 1982

[http://carsonparkdesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/B-Kliban-Barf-Bold.jpg]
--[[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.221|172.68.132.221]] 03:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
:Got that in TTF format? [[User:RamenChef|RamenChef]] ([[User talk:RamenChef|talk]]) 21:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

;Did Randall goof, or is it part of the joke?
Megan proposes a single emoji, "U+IF93F" as the vomit modifier. How is possible, then, that in each implementation the vomit is a different shape and location? Is it possible to create an emoji that is self-aware and reconfigures itself as needed?[[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 15:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
:Yes. To cite two examples I'm familiar with: The Fitzpatrick scale skin colour modifiers (U+1F3FB through U+1F3FF) affect whatever part of the emoji (hands, faces, etc.) is considered skin; and many of the "diacritical" or "accent mark" modifiers adjust their position as needed for whatever letter they're being added to, and many of those modifiers can make tall stacks. [[User:Mrob27|Mrob27]] ([[User talk:Mrob27|talk]]) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

;Error in the description text
The statement "emojis...aren't typically perceived as parts of text" is clearly incorrect. The entire purpose for which emojis were created is to express emotions in text (which can be difficult to convey in words); emojis are inherently part of text.

I wish I was a good enough artist to make images for the winking face vomiting. --[[User:AverseABFun|AverseABFun]] ([[User talk:AverseABFun|talk]]) 03:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)