Talk:Bughouse chess

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bughouse chess article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

Bughouse chess has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 24, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
September 3, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
September 24, 2007	Peer review	Not reviewed
December 8, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Good article

Chess Mid‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is in the list of selected articles that are shown on Portal:Chess.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Variations?[edit]

The variations section has given me pause for a while. I've played an awful lot of bughouse with people from all over the world and have never encountered any of these variations (with the exception of the rule common in any over-the-board speed chess game, taking kings that don't move out of check). I haven't mentioned it before because all I'm bringing to the table in saying that is original research. But actually looking at the sources, it's becoming clear the section needs to be significantly reduced.

The very first source, which looks to be the basis for much of the section .... is a comments section.

The only bullet with other sources is "Pieces cannot be dropped with check or checkmate. This variation is common in Europe, and the game featuring it is sometimes referred to as tandem chess." I'm limited by not speaking the language, so forgive me if it says something that doesn't carry over via Google Translate, but I don't see anything in these talking about this as a "common" variant -- just that it's a possible variant. Furthermore, these sources are personal websites of unclear quality -- certainly not good enough to generalize about what is "common" across a continent.

What does seem good to keep is coverage of two-player and six-player games, which look to be supported by better sources (and, not that it matters, but since I'm unabashedly drawing from anecdote, they are also common according to my OR).

I've gone ahead and removed most of the variations per the above, and renamed the section "Two-player and six-player variations". Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't remove information when it is sourced just because you don't understand the source. Dropping without giving check has always been the normal way of playing this game in the Netherlands. See also the present rules by the Dutch chess federation. Bever (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could, of course, have edited the article to restore the description of that variant. I've added it, with a link to the Dutch rules—only parenthetically, because I agree that it's not a common variant. (For instance, online Bughouse on FICS, ICC, and chess.com, allows drop-check.) HughieGRex (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bughouse in WSJ[edit]

Bughouse: A Crazy, Addictive Variation on Chess from the 9 June 2016 Wall Street Journal. Not a long article, but it's nice to see :) It embeds this youtube video of Carlsen, Vachier-Lagrave, Caruana, and Aronian playing bug. It's not a very good game, but might be worth transcribing and using as the example given how much of a big deal it [sort of] is? Aronian is very good at bug, but looks like the big blunder was missing the mess Bd3 was going to cause him. Of course, the real problem is that he never had a chance to clean up because Caruana kept freezing up, so they must've been losing on time the entire game... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bughouse chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAR?[edit]

10 years ago, this article went through a review for A-class, then an apparently informal review (just a statement that it passes rather than a transparent review) for GA. A substantial portion of the article comes from von Zimmerman, Georg, ed. (2006), Bughouse Chess. In addition to overreliance on it, it's a self-published source. Other sources are blogs and other self-published and primary sources. Now, granted, the people involved with some of these sources, including von Zimmerman, are about as close as we can get to an expert author, so they're not terrible, but such heavy reliable on SPS should really be a red flag for GAN. There are a number of other issues with the article, too, but the others are probably more fixable so I won't get into them at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FICS vs. Chess.com[edit]

I edited the text to suggest that FICS may not be the most common Bughouse venue online any more. Historically, that was so; but chess.com has quite the robust Bughouse activity. Streamers such as Chuck Moulton focus on chess.com games and tend to speak of FICS as the historical Bughouse site. A brief googling didn't turn up any reliable info, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HughieGRex (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]