Check out Smess, our featured variant for February, 2025.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order Later
Stanley Random Chess. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Larry Smith wrote on Wed, Oct 26, 2005 10:57 PM UTC:
Fortunately, Topov provided himself with a large contingency of clones. Each being thoroughly trained and legally able to repesent the original.

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Mar 27, 2006 08:44 AM UTC:
this is pretty funny. i just can't believe people actually waste time playing it at schemingmind.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Apr 11, 2008 09:45 PM UTC:
Why do I have a feeling this is connected to CalvinBall Chess somehow:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Calvinball+Chess

Charles Daniel wrote on Sat, Apr 12, 2008 05:24 PM UTC:Poor ★
And I mean this is a poor joke at that! 
I don't think this should be at this site unless it is categorized as a joke and a poor one at that. 
This is like one of the numerous Wikipedia joke/bogus entries and far less   interesting to boot.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 04:33 AM UTC:
My take on this, is that Mornington Crescent, and is a bit like Calvinball.  I would consider SRC to be the Mornington Crescent of Chess games, a bit of an inside joke actually.  I will say that it does serve a useful purpose of showing people who play a game like chess, or even a particularly variant, what their game sounds like to those who don't know about it.

So, on this note, we can use this comment here as a note that SRC is very likely a joke.  The funny thing is someone I have messaged on BGG said they were responsible for its creation.

George Duke wrote on Thu, Dec 24, 2015 04:57 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Stanley Random was first to use "Simpleminded Chess" to describe their stubborn little f.i.d.e. form that will probably stupidly outlast another decade. The original Stanley Random on CVPage was December 2004. Because of some criticism and unclear Rules, the description by Topov is dispersed and not completely in this article, apparently some of it edited by Topov, because for one thing originally there was mention of like 20,000 2 millenniums back origination in the first paragraph. Although it is not clear anyone knew exactly what was going on with Stanley Random: <a href="http://www.chessvariants.com/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=11182">One_of_Dozens</a>. See the other fifty comments.<p>Simpleminded? <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/magnus_carlsen.html">Wit</a>. <a href="http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gargantua+images&view=detailv2&qpvt=gargantua+images&id=298BAF6D661F82B5A8CE20917BEC282308826415&selectedIndex=12&ccid=JPyPIoWC&simid=608034861624526294&thid=OIP.M24fc8f2285820ca5a1980b9e36fdcd45o0&ajaxhist=0">Excess</a>. <p> <a href="http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=gargantua%ee%80%81+and+%ee%80%80pantagruel&view=detailv2&qpvt=gargantua%ee%80%81+and+%ee%80%80pantagruel&id=FA0ECED71DF0D844EEB5C6B8B5178B5D0F5ABE37&selectedIndex=6&ccid=u1ClGyjy&simid=607987153114042062&thid=OIP.Mbb50a51b28f2b4c3f7749bb61f47d9c1o0&ajaxhist=0">Gargantua</a> -- Rabelais in 1530s wrote excitedly of new mad Queen Chess, not as old as Stanley Random, still played today, and the image from the book represents Chess play. Rabelais' two chapters on a ball, a dance, for Chess, describing actual game moves of all the pieces, two of them brand new in Bishop and Queen, were longer at 12 pages or more even than individual Chess Morality poems of years 1200 to 1500 about the early Shatranj form. <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/magnuscarl484959.html">Quotes</a>.

🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Jan 18, 2021 09:38 PM UTC:

Should I remove this page? The rules section does not describe the rules, and this page does not make it clear how to play this game.


Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jan 19, 2021 01:58 AM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from Mon Jan 18 09:38 PM:

I think it should be removed. As I recall, it was a joke that the author stubbornly insisted was not a joke, making it basically an act of trolling.


🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Jan 19, 2021 05:43 PM UTC in reply to Greg Strong from 01:58 AM:

I just noticed that this is a link page, and one of the links provided on the page did go to a page with more information. I fixed up the HTML, added a notice to the top, and removed all but one link. Some were Geocities links that no longer worked, and some were general links that didn't go to information on this particular game.


Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jan 19, 2021 06:16 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 05:43 PM:

It's an improvement, but the linked page doesn't contain the rules either - because the "game" is almost certainly a hoax.


Joseph DiMuro wrote on Tue, Jan 19, 2021 11:48 PM UTC:

My understanding is that the description of the game is a hoax, but the game itself is not. It's normal chess where, with each move you make, there's a 50% chance of your move being replaced with a move chosen at random from all legal moves.


🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Jan 20, 2021 06:46 PM UTC in reply to Joseph DiMuro from Tue Jan 19 11:48 PM:

My understanding is that the description of the game is a hoax, but the game itself is not.

I will quote some excerpts from the linked document that suggest it is a hoax:

The precise rules are far too numerous to list here, and the above rules merely introduce some of the unique aspects of SR Chess.

Even the page linked to does not describe the full rules of the game.

A good grasp of the more comprehensive laws that govern legal and winning patterns and sequences is essential for expert play, but these are amply documented and explained in Samuel Worthington's fourth edition of Stanley Random Chess: The Official Player's Guide - Vol. 1, The Rules (Vol. 2, The Players and Vol. 3, Developing Winning Strategy are also worthwhile).

A Google search for this book did not turn up any links to it. It apparently does not exist. All that turned up were the page linked here and copies of it.

Over 535 such variations have been documented by the ISRCA, and the appendix of their 2004 Official Stanley Random Chess Handbook summarizes the 32 more popular international variations.

When I searched Google for "Official Stanley Random Chess Handbook", I did not find any link to this document.

But I did find an Uncyclopedia article on Stanley Random Chess. Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, which is full of falsehoods written as humor. Checking who wrote the first version of the Wikipedia article, it is in fact Gregory Topov, the author of this page. I consider this an admission that Stanley Random Chess is a hoax.

Playing Online

This section talks about playing it on schemingmind.com, the very site the article is hosted on, but it does not include a link for actually playing it online.

Given that full documentation for the game exists only in fictional documents, the author of this page wrote an Uncyclopedia article on this game, and I cannot find anyplace to actually play it online despite claims that it can be played online, I conclude that this game is a hoax.


🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Jan 20, 2021 06:52 PM UTC in reply to Greg Strong from Tue Jan 19 06:16 PM:

I have updated the notice to a warning that says this game is a hoax.


💡Austin Lockwood wrote on Fri, Jun 18, 2021 04:00 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from Wed Jan 20 06:52 PM:

Hi Fergus,

Interesting that this discussion is still rolling on after sixteen years ;-)

SRC is real... some of the flowery discussion around it is the product of various hyperactive imaginations, but the game itself is most certainly real.

I am the game's inventor (Topov has written extensively about SRC, but he didn't invent it), and I wrote the software which runs behind SchemingMind.com... so I can attest to it's authenticity with some authority.

I have sent you a challenge; I hope you accept... it's a fun game, you might enjoy it.

Sure, you can argue that the occult nature of the rules mean that it doesn't belong on this website... if that is the case, then please just go ahead and delete the article rather than describing it as a hoax... because it isn't.

Cheers, Austin


🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Jun 21, 2021 06:56 PM UTC in reply to Austin Lockwood from Fri Jun 18 04:00 PM:

I have updated this page with more factual information.


bang samuel Soetrisno wrote on Thu, Oct 17, 2024 08:45 AM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from Wed Jan 20 2021 06:46 PM:Excellent ★★★★★
super, super brilliant

16 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.