The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three-handed chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is just an advertisement for non-notable three player chess games. This was only edited once (besides my AFD) and that was back in August. Tavix (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I noticed on another chess variation's article, Four-handed chess, you personally had expanded the article from a stub. Why do you feel four-handed chess is notable but three-handed is not? (Note: This could just be a matter of me being ignorant about chess.) -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded four-handed chess because that is one single chess variant that has a lot of people actually playing it. I got a four-handed chess board for Christmas so I included a picture I took as well.Three handed chess on the other hand is an article that is basically just an advertisement for different "variations" that few, if any people play. Besides, it is possible to play chess with three players on a four-handed board. Tavix (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is your basis, though, for saying that it is not notable? It almost sounds like you're saying four handed is notable and three handed is not because you got a four handed board for Christmas. The article references a book which apparently includes information on three handed chess and also links to an article in Time magazine about it. Additionally, a Yahoo search found six pages of references to the game when I put "three handed chess" in quotation marks. I admit that the page sounds advertisement-ish but I'm really still feeling that if four-handed chess could be expanded from a stub, three handed could as well. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am sorry if I made it sound like that is only notable because I got a four-handed board for Christmas. I said that because that was one of my reasons for expanding the four-handed chess. And is six pages really enough to be notable? That means any site that has "three-handed chess" somewhere in the page is listed. That would include the Wikipedia article as well so that would mean more or less of 58 hits. Is that enough for notability? I put three-handed up because it was basically an advertisement, and most of the links point to one site. Tavix (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I have great interest in chess, I have essentially no interest in chess variants and I typically don't edit those articles. When I saw this article up for AFD, I checked The Oxford Companion to Chess to see if it has an entry for three-handed chess. The Oxford Companion is currently the standard English-language reference work on chess. An entry is not required for encyclopedic notability (we have many articles that don't have entries here—we require more chess biographies alone than any 483 page book could hold and it was published in 1992 so we have another decade and a half of chess developments to cover as well), but it provides a baseline because in my view most entries in this standard reference are worthy of a wikipedia article. The Oxford Companion entry on three-handed chess traces its origin to 1722 and discusses developments made in 1837. It also mentions that it is of less importance historically than four-handed chess and that it has never been as popular, echoing comments made by others above. Still, in my view, important enough for a substantial entry in the Oxford Companion means important enough to keep. Quale (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmm, interesting find. Do you have any internet links for that? I would like to see that for myself but I do not own a copy of that myself. Also, another question: What kind of three-handed chess is in that book? I ask this because according to the wikipedia article, there are more than one.Tavix (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good questions. Unfortunately The Oxford Companion to Chess is out of print, but not out of copyright. I highly recommend it to chess enthusiasts, but used copies are more expensive than one would expect ($40+ is common). As Voorlandt mentions below, the Companion discusses several chess variants for three players rather than one specific variant. Those mentioned include the initial 1722 variant using a board extended by 24 squares (8×3) on three sides (similar to what is used for four-handed chess, I think), an 1837 version using a symmetrical 120-square board, and a later version by Antoine Demonchy (c. 1827–1895) using three regular chess boards. I should add some info from the Companion myself rather than waiting for someone else to do it, although I don't really know very much about chess variants. Quale (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I can confirm that the Oxford Companion has an article on three handed chess, about ¼ page. Bubba73 (talk), 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments and Quale's above. I'm not convinced this fails notability. Honestly, I haven't heard of the vast majority of chess variants but I'll change my vote if someone can give me a good argument for why this is not notable. -- Redfarmer (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep The article is not about a specific chess variant but rather about all chess variants to be played with three people. Chapter 37 of Pritchard's classified encyclopedia of chess variants (ed. John Beasley 2007) is entirely dedicated to three-handed chess and this makes the topic notable. The article should probably be rewritten to make it sound more encyclopedic; but I strongly oppose deleting it. Voorlandt (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I should have mentioned in my keep argument that I agree that the article should be improved. Currently it relies too heavily on chessvariants.org and this isn't really satisfactory. It should include more information from printed references such as Pritchard and Hooper & Whyld. Quale (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep References provided by Quale and Voorlandt sound good enough to keep the article. Another possibility would be to merge the article into Chess variant, but it would probably overload it as Three-handed chess is not about a particular variant, but about a whole family of chess variants. SyG (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP AND EDIT IT!! I strongly oppose deleting this article. I think that it needs to be rewritten to discuss each type of three man chess in greater detail, with segments outlining the special rules and the different boards used to play three man chess, and all the special rules and different stragities that this game implies. It is a legitamate game that a lot of people DO play, and others would love to try if they could get ahold of a three man board. I have one and I love the game personally. My problem is I can't find a set of "offical" rules for the proper movements around my hexagonal board. It's not played as often because it isn't as advertised as much as two man and four man chess. It is an interesting game and should be detailed on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.205.75.119 (talk • contribs)

• Keep, but it does need quite a bit of work. Bubba73 (talk), 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.