That would be a Field Promotion I think, also a Magikarp Power.
Also a underpromotion to something other than a Queen would be potentially Suicidal Overconfidence or a underpromotion to a knight could be Lethal Joke Character
edited 16th Jan '17 4:38:17 PM by Memers
Promoting to Knight is not an underpromotion, simply because that is the one piece that does not move like the Queen.
edited 16th Jan '17 4:58:18 PM by crazysamaritan
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.I think the discussion of what tropes fit on the page as is is off-topic, since there has been no actual decision for what action to take. I believe the options for action are:
- Keep the current Chess pages while giving them a clean-up to remove shoe horned and zero context examples.
- Cut the current Chess sub-pages while moving the tropes to a Just for Fun page and making a separate Useful Notes page on Chess.
- Create a Useful Notes and Referenced by… page for Chess's history/competitive side and clean up the Tabletop page.
- Cut all Chess pages without replacement.
- Leave the pages as they are.
Cutting is not an option unless you want to remove every Board Games on the wiki as well. It is just as valid of a work as Risk, Go, Shogi or Monopoly.
edited 16th Jan '17 5:42:01 PM by Memers
I promised to shut up about the points I was trying to make earlier, and I will, but I'd just like to comment on the "promotion to piece other than queen" comments above.
"Underpromotion" is standard chess terminology, and it means "promoting a Pawn to anything else than a Queen". So promoting to a Knight is by definition an underpromotion, even though it can be the best possible move (a case you see every now and then is when promoting to a Knight gives a crucial check while promoting to a Queen gives the opponent time to save themselves).
Underpromoting can be Suicidal Overconfidence or a joke (though I'm not sure if Lethal Joke Character applies) if it's done just to show off ("I can beat you even without a Queen"). Sometimes underpromotion is a necessity (promotign to a Queen stalemates the opponent, but promoting to a Rook leads to mate). But that's surely a trope about an action made by a particular player, and we don't trope that. (Though among chess players, a game of chess has the status of a work, with Chess as the medium - but I think that's beyond the scope of this wiki).
edited 17th Jan '17 1:04:43 AM by GnomeTitan
Game mechanics are tropes, actually. True, Suicidal Overconfidence would be a player action.
Underpromoting to a knight because it allows a royal fork to happen would be a purposeful underpromotion.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
We could have Let's Play's for chess...but I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms...
Regarding number 2: what "subpages" are you referring to?
Anyway, I thought the first thing we were going to do was see if there were enough valid tropes to justify a Tabletop Game page. That's why I created Sandbox.Chess. Which still needs some bad tropes trimmed, but looks pretty promising, even if only half of what I initially kept makes the final cut.
Voting before we even know if we have enough tropes to salvage the page seems like a bad idea.
edited 17th Jan '17 1:58:19 AM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.![]()
A purposeful underpromotion seems tropable. It's not really a game mechanic, but more of a stratagem, perhaps, but I suppose that falls in the same category of tropes?
It's related to sacrifices and, more generally, the pattern where you exchange one asset for another (typically, you sacrifice pieces to gain time or a positional advantage, but it could also be the other way round). I'm not sure if there are ready-made tropes for that.
edited 17th Jan '17 3:42:42 AM by GnomeTitan
![]()
By sub-pages, I'm refering to the Trivia page, the YMMV page and the Characters page, the Awesomd page, the Fridge page and the WMG page. Generally, Useful Notes don't have these types of sub-pages.
It can not be just a useful notes page though, it is a work just like any other game in the tabletop namespace.
Now that's not saying that the content in them is right though, /awesome is just filled with big name chess games which could be a useful notes or analysis on players and games or something. It's something that could be a problem in other tabletop games.
Most of the YMMV, funny and characters pages look good.
edited 17th Jan '17 10:50:25 AM by Memers
I thought those subpages were for Theatre.Chess. Silly me. :)
Anyway, yeah, without a valid reason to cut, cutting's not an option. The original suggestion was that there couldn't be enough valid, non-shoehorned tropes to justify a page. If that's proven false (and I think it can be, but we really should go through the Sandbox to make sure), then we don't get to override the standard wiki rules.
I might go so far as to say that the original premise for opening this thread has been (or is on the edge of being) rebutted, and that without another issue on the table, this really isn't a subject for repair shop any more.
Edit: of course, as long as it's open, anyone can raise other issues....
ETAx2: Did a first pass at sorting the tropes in Sandbox.Chess into acceptable and non-acceptable and I'm-not-sure. Even with a bunch of I'm-not-sure's left, I still got eleven pretty solid looking tropes. And I threw Church Militant into the "no" group.
edited 17th Jan '17 11:40:20 AM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.- 42: "As a tournament player I'm definitely unhappy with calling chess a war game"
Well, you may be unhappy about it, but that doesn't make it any less true. Chess is, and always has been, a war game. The king is the commander. The pawns are the foot soldiers. There's a knight, on a horse, who can jump.
- 42: " And the Church Militant trope is limited to English-speaking countries."
This is an English-language wiki. And I would suggest you look again at the Bishop's pointy hat. The Staunton chess set
that is now the generic chess set all over the world was designed by an Englishman in deliberate imitation of a bishop's hat.
- 51: "Also, when a pawn crosses the board to the other end, it can be promoted to another piece, one usually picks a queen as she's the most powerful one Wonder if that is a trope."
- 55: "Cutting is not an option unless you want to remove every Board Games on the wiki as well. It is just as valid of a work as Risk, Go, Shogi or Monopoly."
Absolutely. Cut all of those pages. Then cut the entire Pinball namespace and everything in it. Then cut the entire Let's Play namespace. Then, maybe people can talk about cutting chess.
edited 17th Jan '17 9:45:46 PM by jamespolk
Okay, so cutting is off the table. Nice.
![]()
In response to the Sandbox, the Pv P archetypes don't really apply to Chess since there's no "speed" or "attack" stats. Because of that, Lightning Bruiser and Glass Cannon should probably be off the table.
![]()
You're confusing the chess set with the game itself. You can play chess with a Star Trek set, where the bishops look like Klingons, and that doesn't make chess a science fiction game, does it?
What the Staunton chess set does prove is that the person designing it (probably not Staunton himself) thought of the Church Militant trope as applied to bishops. That means the trope exists and is associated with chess, and I've never denied that. It doesn't mean that chess is about militant churchmen.
edited 18th Jan '17 4:29:56 AM by GnomeTitan
Themed Stock Board Game is a thing but that is based on franchise merchandising.
Staunton chess set designs are wide sweeping designs and are broad enough to be part of the work, certainly not worthy of splitting into another work.
edited 18th Jan '17 4:40:01 AM by Memers
Look, I really think we're arguing at cross-purposes here.
Memers, you and jamespolk have made it clear that people associate chess Bishops with churchmen.
I suppose you also agree that when people look at playing cards, they think of royalty (because of the kings and queens, right)?
But I'm talking about what the game is about, not what it makes you think of. Let me ask you a question: If the cards you're playing poker with makes you think of royalty, does that make poker a game about kings and queens fighting it out? Does the fact that a pair of kings beats a pair of queens but a "pair" of a king and a queen isn't even a hand (before anybody goes all pedantic on me, let's assume the remaining three cards can't be used for other combinations) mean that poker has a message about sexual relations?
edited 18th Jan '17 5:08:23 AM by GnomeTitan
Just cause you don't associate things like that doesn't mean they actually are that. A trope page covers everything except personal stories.
Because a wide variety of chess sets, the media, and EVERYTHING ELSE in English associate the Knight being a knight on a horse and such is a fully valid trope on the page.
Edit: It being a game of war is also fact, it's origin is Chaturanga which means 'four arms' as in the four arms of the Indian military. Chess is a war strategy game that simulates combined arms operations of the ancient world.
Over the years it and the various pieces have evolved by decree of kings and queens but that hasn't changed the perception, history and usage. And various languages have changed and morphed different pieces but it's still a basic game of war and strategy.
In fact every game that was based off Chaturanga still is in the exact same ways.
edited 18th Jan '17 5:48:36 AM by Memers
I agree with your basic ideas, but I'm not sure what trope you think would fit the knight. Knight in Shining Armor is not a trope about medieval knights. It's a trope about a very specific image of knighthood—one which does not appear in chess, since chess predates that trope. And as far as I know, we don't have a trope about Knights.
Likewise, Warrior Monk would be a good fit for the bishop, but Church Militant is simply misuse.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
This is sensible enough. I don't think there would be mass objection to a cleanup and removal of tropes that are shoehorned in. For this example, of course the piece is a bishop and it's fighting, so there you go, but Warrior Monk probably is the applicable trope instead of Church Militant.
Cleanup is why I created Sandbox.Chess. Now, if only I could get at least one other person in this thread to look at it and help with the sorting, we might get somewhere. :)
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.I don't like using narrative tropes (like Took a Level in Badass) for the evolution of the game. I removed a bunch of tropes I felt certain were misuse and rephrased a good number more. There's thirteen tropes and eighteen examples now.
edited 18th Jan '17 2:26:16 PM by crazysamaritan
Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
You added Swap Out Move, which doesn't seem to be a trope.
I went ahead and added Warrior Monk and removed Church Militant.
We're making progress. Still a bunch that are uncertain.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Crown Description:
Chess is a game without story/narrative, and much of the tropes about it are either speculation or blatant shoehorns. We have discussed

Also, when a pawn crosses the board to the other end, it can be promoted to another piece, one usually picks a queen as she's the most powerful one. Wonder if that is a trope.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman