Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

The information about the origins of the name Stanley is highly suspect.
Stanley as a surname derives from one or more of the several villages of
that name, including one in Derbyshire which is in accord with the fact
that a Stanley family did indeed become Earls of Derby. Like many
aristocratic surnames (Campbell, Cecil, Gordon, Graham, Grant, Howard,
Neville, Percy) it only later became a forename, so it is unlikely to have
been the name of an eleventh-century pet monkey.
	On the other hand, Topov IS the name of a monkey, a character in the
British 1970s children's programme Pipkin's, so it looks like historical
accuracy is not the top priority on the link. I hope that this information
(which also helps age me!) helps make up for my ignorance of American
children's television!

It must be kept in mind that attempting to verify the historical background
of SR Chess will prove very difficult for the amateur.  Considering the
extent of the Great SR Chess Purge of the mid-19th century, we are
fortunate that the game has survived.

But for those who are truly interested in the complete origin and rules of
SR Chess, simply logon the ISRCA database.  You will need a T-1000 modem
connection, several tetra-bytes of hard-drive space and the standard
full-length Hellsing data-gloves with Universal Sign Language compatible
software.  Visitors to the database need only use the anonymous password
'giveusakiss' then press the baffing key on your standard Benson
flexi-board.

Contrary to internet rumors, the ISRCA search engine does not conflict
with any existing operating system software.

Gregory Topov is a Mornington Cresent
player.http://www.geocities.com/verdrahciretop/mc1.html

Perhaps you are thinking of Stanley Taikyoku Shogessilocklothima which is
a
decendent of SRC but Stanley Taikyoku Shogessilockrothima requires 7
parallel universes on which to set up the board and a time machine so
players can go back in time to inform their past selfs whether or not
their move will destroy the Multiverse.

As a Master level player of SRC, I can tell you that it is indeed as
demanding and tough as any variant you are likely to play.  As for the
amount of background material required to play at even a novice level, it
dwarfs Standard Chess and requires the assistance of computers for modern
play.

As I mention this, the 37th Annual SchemindMind Tournament has just
opened, so if you are interested in observing, or taking part in some
games, now would be an excellant time to do so.

http://www.schemingmind.com/minitournament.aspx?tournament_id=335

Many people have denied that this is a joke.  Several people have claimed
to be active players, and have further claimed that games and tournaments
of it have been played on various forums (such as Brainking.)  So I'm not
convinced that it is purely a joke (although much of the text is obviously
intended to be fictional and funny.)  But, despite the fact that we have
pages and pages of text describing this game, no rule set is actually
given.

So, I think one of two things needs to happen.  If it is, in fact, a real
game, then the actual rules need to be posted here, in addition to all the
nonsense.  Or, these pages should be removed, as they have no place here. 


If it is a joke that the authors deliberately deny is a joke, for the
purpose of laughing at anyone who is fooled, than that is cruel and a
clear abuse of the webspace that the editors of this site generously
provide largely at their own expense.

Or, if it is not a joke, but the rules are 'top secret' then it should
also be removed.  The message 'I know something that you don't know, and
I'm not going to tell you' is also not an appropriate use of the bandwith
that is being paid for by others.

Stanley Random Chess gave me a good laugh when i first read about it, and
this site needs all the laughs it can get. i personally think it should
not be removed.
Next thing you will want to remove 'Gridlock' he he.

Well, since I'm the editor of this page I guess I should add my 2 cents, but not more.

I think this is a serious variant that is very funny. One could say that it is an 'incomplete information' game where instead of the board being partially hidden, like Kriegspiel, the rules are only partially known by the players. The full set of rules are programmed into the Schemingmind.com server if one wants to play the game -- see the links at the bottom of the page (has anyone tried?).

One might divine the compleat rules after much play and systematic testing, but I doubt it. I think at least half the fun is playing in this obscure universe. The game description is meant to be funny to go along with the obscurity.

For the record, as the posting editor, I (and the other editors) know the secret rules (which are also archived in the CVP mail), but I'm not telling. (In fact, I initially also questioned SRC's seriousness before posting the page. Hans did also. And we got a serious reply from the authors. This page was not posted by the authors after all!)

Drop the page? Unthinkable! Besides what would Lord Humberton-Snapf say?! Stanley Random Chess stays!

ahhhhhhhhhaaaa lol!!
so, SRC is funny and on the level wow, didn't see that coming :)
only one thing to do now, give it an 'excellent' :)
god bless SRC, and please forgive all those doubters he he (*whistles*)
(oh btw, pretty cool idea about the rules being mysterious)

Christine Bagley-Jones says:

so, SRC is funny and on the level

As for the idea of a limited-information game where the rules are what is in question, that is a terrible idea. This eliminates all strategy and all tactics. Period. If you don't even know which pieces are safe from capture, then you can't even think about forming a plan. It is all the randomness of Poker without any of the strategy. So, even in the case that neither player knows the rules, it is basically like the card game 'War' (which no one older than about 8 years old plays.)

And what about all this nonsense about it being older than Chess, and indeed the original form of Chess from which Orthodox Chess is supposedly derived? Preposterous! And the authors have also denied that that aspect is a joke. Promoting a bad game is one thing; there are lots of bad games around here. Deliberately pushing bald-faced lies to promote your own game is quite another.

Since the game can and is being played, the pages should not be deleted. However, the author(s) should clarify what it is and what it isn't, and remove all outright lies. As for the positive ratings the game has gotten by master-level and grand-master-level players, (the only positive ratings from anyone who has actually played it,) it only stands to reason that they would want to premote the game that they understand but refuse to enlighten us about.

No, it is not obvious that the historical assertions concerning this game
are a joke, since the inventor(s) themselves have denied this very point. 
There is one post here from Gregory Topov dating writings about this game
to 1066.  As I recall, there are more similar claims, but they were posted
before this game had an official page, so they are old comments I do not
know how to get to.

And, by all means, don't do anything, if that is your inclination, but my
rating of 'poor' stands unless someone can make an intelligent argument
on the game's behalf.

With Stanley Random Chess, there appear to be self-appointed prophets having divine knowledge of what the secrets to the game are. How unappealing. For the game to have some kind of real value to it, the rules behind it must be recorded somewhere, and disclosed within a fair amount of time, so nobody has reason to call anybody else a cheat, or the Rulemaker an idiot. Although 'New Eleusis' has value as a mathematical game, I don't see the same thing with a chess game of this kind.

BTW, the difference between 'Eleusis' and 'New Eleusis' was the creation of an extra role - somebody would be a self-declared prophet interceding between the cardplayers and the rulemaker, and so long as his prophecies were correct, he garnered points for himself, and remained prophet.

seriously, you need to spend a weekend with kate moss if you didn;t see the
'tongue in cheek' side of SRC.
anyway, if you started playing this game, you would have to play someone
who knew the rules right?! (lol)
if you started playing say on brainking server or whatever it is called,
would you eventually be able to know all the rules?

• Mornington Crescent. See http://www.dunx.org/mc/ for example.
• Mao, a card game where the rules are not revealed to new players. See http://www.pagat.com/eights/mao.html (and Mao is definitely not a joke)

I looked at the mao game and I think that one will be easier to catch than
SRC. Just curious how will the cheating be prevented in such games.

I consider that SRC can not be learned by playing at all.
Else it needs some consistency which does not exist in SRC.
For example white moves 1st d2-d4 does not work every time. How will a SRC
grand master see that in advance? And playing of someone who knows all
rules against someone who does not is quite unfair. At least someone who
knows the rules should says this in advance of a game of SRC. Then the
player not knowing the rules can at least try to learn them.
And another thing is the complete lack of example SRC games.

Another thing is how the client works at www.schemingmind.com.
If a player makes a move, which is illegal in the case of the SRC rule
set, it makes a random move from all available legal moves.

Two players playing SRC who don't know the rules is very funny.

The other game (MC) is just a nonsense. How can someone keep a '125
volume' ruleset in the mind? And what is the playing material for that
game?

well, not a complete lack of example games, there is one here.
http://geocities.com/verdrahciretop/src8.html
i havn't checked it out, and i am guessing it teaches you nothing, but
not sure, 
as i havn't looked at it.
At the end of that game, there are another 2 example games, but you must
 be member to see (free membership i think)

For most of us, Internet costs money, and playing a game of Stanley Random
Chess would certainly be bound to eat up a lot of time, and therefore cost
a lot of money.  Although you said that SRC is amusing, do you really think
it is worth the money to play it?  For instance, let's put the shoe on the
other foot.  Suppose I (or someone you don't know, but whom I were to
approve of, and you had absolutely no way of locating that person) were
the one to define the 'secret rules' behind Stanley Random Chess, and
she alone were to decide on whether your moves were acceptable or not. 
That kind of a setup could certainly have the potential of driving up
costs, don't you think?  Not to mention 'bandwidth' in the form of
noise, or near-noise.

Would you still find the game amusing enough to play for a few months, or
a few years?

(Now for an 'opening the floodgates' argument:)

The next hypothetical offers us even more food for thought:  suppose a
hundred thousand people or more found my version of Stanley Random Chess
(with my own list of approved but anonymous rulemakers) engaging, would
the increased consumption of bandwidth be worth it to you, to call it
amusing?  Or, if the ante is upped to an even higher stake, would it be
worth it to society?  After all, if robots could be programmed to play
Stanley Random Chess - not that they are /that/ creative - and even if
they would be answerable to their owners alone, and not to society, would
you still find it amusing?

yep, most chess players have no sense of humor alright lol
he never said he was going to play the game, so i guess he stills finds it
amusing. i find it amusing, and i find your post amusing too :)
i get the internet, regardless of if i was to play src or not, i don't
really see a cost in it, maybe there is, who cares, and anyway, who would
seriously play src ha ha, but if you did, i think that is great :)
let us know how it goes :)

The rules are honestly not that difficult to find out, and most players willing to take the time to play one or two games at schemingmind.com will discover them quickly. Nobody should be allowed to question the authenticity and legitimacy of Stanley Random Chess without first trying the game online at schemingmind.com.

I have personally played several games, and can appreciate and understand the game's appeal! New players should not give up too quickly, and indeed the best way to learn the game is simply play one or two games with experienced players.

[This comment is hidden pending review. It will eventually be deleted or displayed.]

First of all my apologies if my promoting this chess variant has caused any offence to members of this site, I can assure you that this hasn't ever been my intention. I do realise that SRC is not a conventional chess variant, however I would hope that people who were sufficiently enlightened to change the rules of orthodox chess would be prepared to at least consider the possibilities.

Whether or not this page remains on this site is clearly an editorial decision, however Stanley Random Chess is a chess variant. I fail to see why some people find it distasteful, but then many orthodox chess players find CrazyHouse and Fischer Random Chess distasteful in the same way...

I can assure everyone here that Stanley Random Chess is a real game, which is currently being played and enjoyed by dozens of people. The rules are occult - nobody knows them; whether you choose to believe that this is because they are contained in hundred year old bound leather volumes which are only available to members of a secret society, or because they are encoded in a computer algorithm on the SchemingMind server is up to you - the important thing is that it doesn't matter, you don't need to know the rules to play the game... that's the whole point.

Regarding the previous posts here - part of the fun of SRC is discussing the mythology around the game, and a common style for this prose seems to have evolved. I do recognise the names of some of the posters here from SchemingMind, and if I am correct in identifying these people then these posts have been made by discrete individuals. I would urge you to check IP addresses if possible before taking any further action.

I would at least recommend that your editorial policy insist that all 
gamepages be mainly serious and rational in describing the rules, board,
pieces, history, etc.  In this case, it should clearly state that Stanley
Random Chess is a game where the rules are hidden information.

Advocates of this game are not winning any new fans by having their game
genuinely mistaken for a hoax or a practical joke by intelligent peers. 
Furthermore, frustrating people who show a serious interest with endless
layers of presumably funny or witty bullshit is neither humorous nor
clever.  A number of people have received extremely-far-from-straight
answers to their straight questions.  The humor in their treatment escapes
me completely.

I agree with Derek.  If the rules themselves are hidden information, then
that is an interesting idea which merits consideration (and, perhaps,
playtesting.)  But as Derek points out, the pages don't say that this is
hidden information, and these pages are so long and convoluted as to
deliberately dance around that point.

Furthermore, what is missing from the discussion on this page, is the fact
that this is a continuation of a previous discussion.  I assume that the
start of the discussion is not here because it originated under a
user-created topic thread before the game had an official page.  In any
event, when the questions of the legitimacy of the so-called history of
SRC came up, and I insisted that SRC does not pre-date Orthodox Chess, the
response was a resounding denial that any of the history was invented.  He,
(Gregory Topov, I believe,) insisted that, although the history may be
humorous, it was completely legit and that future research will prove
centuries-old heritage of SRC as the true, original form of Chess.  (This
is paraphrased from memory since I do not know how to locate the original
thread, but my memory is quite good.)  As I previously stated, humor is
one thing; lying is quite another.

Also, Austin Lookwood said:

The rules are occult - nobody knows them.

How exactly is this possible? How could the scheming mind server have been programmed to enfore rules that are unknown by anyone? Also, editor Tony Quintanilla has stated that the rules were disclosed to him. So the rules are known by some people and to say otherwise is just more misinformation.

This whole discussion could terminate in a hurry if a simple change was made to these pages. State up front what SRC is and what it isn't. This would help encourage support from the members of this community, rather than discouraging it, and would not detract from whatever humor may be present.

It is obvious that the Anti-Stanleys have reconstituted their effort to
eradicate SRC.  The previous attempt resulted in decades of repression,
lost documents and rather boring knock-offs of SRC, like the Mad Queen
variant which many still believe is the original game of Chess.

Anti-Stanleyism is an ugly thing.  Usually the genetic result of the
absence of the buffo-osso.  There are maintenance techniques which can
counter-act this deficiency.  Visit the ASA(Anti-Stanley Anonymous)
website for a list of phrenologists which will be glad to assist in
alleviating this crippling condition.  The local support groups are quite
nice, too.

Unfortunately, the effect of the Anti-Stanley movement cannot be totally
wiped out.  There usually survives a Master and an Apprentice.

Larry Smith:

This comment is a joke, right?  Or are you trolling?

This article was submitted in a complete form and accepted for publication as such by a ChessVariants editor nearly a year ago, it's been available for peer review ever since. No respectable publisher would demand changes so long after publication, and I'm sure that ChessVariants is no exception to this. OK, if the editors now feel that the article is offensive in any way then simply remove it and we'll discuss it no more; but please don't ask Greg to change it at this point.

The rules of SRC are occult within certain limitations; moves which are legal in SRC are always legal in Standard Chess, but not necessarily the reverse... so if I enter the move 1.e4 in my game, the server might (or might not) deem that move to be illegal under SRC rules, and change it to 1.a3. The reason for this is unimportant, it could be because dark squares are modal on the third Tuesday of the month, or it could just be because there's a random number generator hidden somewhere within the software - you don't know and it doesn't matter, the fact is that it's impossible to say why without some degree of confabulation - and the more outrageous that confabulation, the more enjoyable the game.

Yeah, OK, some of the things that have been written about SRC may have been slightly exaggerated... but c'mon guys, relax - it's only a bit of fun!

I personally believe that pushing sleeping trolls over, or 'trolling', is
a cruel and rather childish act.  And besides it has nothing to do with SRC
since the use or participation of trolls is strictly forbidden by the 1987
Articles of the Tongalese SRC Convention.

It's not that trolls have low IQs which cause the problems, it just that
when they become fixated.  This can result in them endlessly staring at
such things as moving fan blades, constantly digging in their noses, or
humming the same tune over and over and over....

But SRC still commemorates their past participation by tournament
audiences spontaneously breaking into rousing rounds of 'Pop Goes the
Weasel'.  The humming of such by a player can result in severe
penalization.

I think I can clear up the problems presented by those who are mystified by
the rules of Stanley Random Chess.  As the current American Grand Master, I
can assure you that even I find it hard to keep up with the volumes of
rules and stipulations that are involved.  In fact, I would suggest that
about 50% of the moves I make feel as if they were chosen at random from
all the possible moves available at that time.  It's only afterwards that
I'm able to determine the reason for my own errors, after looking up the
specifics of the situation in my leatherbound library.  (My personal
Achilles Heel are the moon phase transition instituted in Berlin, 1484.)

So while I often like to open with e4, about half the time my opening move
is substituted with the nearest legal ('random', to the layman) move from
all the available legal moves.  Again, I've never failed to be able to
find the rational for this transition upon review of the historical
journals.  I almost always find time to note these transitions to my
opponent, who sometimes finds such things humourous.  For example, when a
King joins inline with a row of pawns, this is known as 'Slumming'. 
When a Queen is prematurely brought into play she is often refered to as
'Dancing'.  The terminology is quiet liberating.

Should you have further questions, I'm sure playing a game would satisfy
your curiosity.  Feel free to challenge me on Scheming Minds.

austin take it easy, i don't think there is a strong drive to have this
game removed, just ya normal bunch of knockers, which you should
understand, because games make it to this site, and they are a 'joke' on
purpose, and src can easily be mistaken as this.
anyway, now to a important question ...
how was src played before computers came along ... someone must of known
of the rules lol ...
kind of funny how much talk this game gets, with seemingly no one
bothering to try out the game at schemeingmind he he

Topov!! i thought you were dead!?!
http://geocities.com/verdrahciretop/src7.html
'This was GM Topov's last published article about Stanley Random Chess,
prior to his unfortunate death at the hands of escaped primates at the New
York City Zoo. Stanley Random Chess today owes much of its popularity to GM
Topov. Under his influence it has an active presence on the internet,
notably the excellent web-based email chess server
www.schemingmind.com.'
Nice to see someone got that wrong and you are alive and well :))

Why do I have a feeling this is connected to CalvinBall Chess somehow:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Calvinball+Chess

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

I have updated this page with more factual information.