Talk:Chopsticks (hand game)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles

Game theory Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Clarification

Am I missing something? I don't understand this game. — Morganfitzp 03:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article just seems to jump straight in to the middle. A couple of sentences of explanation perhaps? How does the game work, what are points, what are hands? In many games a “hand” means a bunch of cards or other things that you hold in your hand, not your actual physical hand. It might be a good idea to illustrate an example game, perhaps with pictures, so that someone new to Chopsticks can get a basic idea of what is going on. --Barnes1463 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. You start out with one point on each hand, and somehow you're supposed to get your opponent to fill up their hands before you do... but it doesn't say how you do that or what happens in between. This must be one of those things that's so obvious to the person who writes it that they don't realize that they've left it out. 104.129.196.171 (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's another variation where if you hit your hand you are considered to add points from the other hand to it. Is there a way to definitely win? E.g. on the first turn your opponent hits their hand. They now have 1:2 and you have 1:1. What would you do?

Question

Why is there no article on the Magic Fingers Vibrating Bed? I was both surprised and disappointed to be led to an article about an obscure childrens' game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Moving Page

Since there is more than one thing called "magic Fingers" (This game and the bed), I thought we should move the page to Magic Fingers (Game) and create a Disambuguation here. I want to know what you guys think first. --Andrew Hampe | Talk 19:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat late, but I agree. I was looking for the 'vibrating bed' version as mentioned above. I've never heard of this game called chopsticks, but was surprised to find that it was not the piano version, and made no mention of the eating utensils. --StarChaser Tyger (talk) 12:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Win

I just wanted to point out that it is not the second player that always wins; rather it is the player who doesn't tap the opponent first (that is, if the first player alters his or her hand to 2:0, then he or she may still win).12.206.235.170 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go beat the bot. We'll wait. 74.211.59.182 (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true for example:

You go Second Opponent goes First

You Opponent 1:1, 1:1

1:1, 2:0

1:1, 3:0

1:1, 2:1

2:0, 2:1

4:0, 2:1

2:2, 2:1

4:2, 0:1

0:2, 0:1

1;1, 0:1

2:1, 0:1

3:0, 0:1

4:0, 0:1

4:0, 0:0

There is no way that the first person who tapped 2:0 first can get out of losing.--71.234.101.173 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "auto win" section doesn't seem at all thorough to me, someone brand new to the game. All of the "sample games" depend on the opponent making specific moves (such as going to 3:0, 3:1 rather than 2:0, 2:1 with the fourth move of the game). Is there any source on the web for a proof of an auto-win based on a full game tree? Or is there any auto-win source at all aside from another wiki? I'm still not convinced that the game is an auto-win for either player. 69.244.122.247 01:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how I see it. Also, I've always played with remainders. You Opponent

1:1 2:0

1:1 3:0

4:1 3:0-if playing with remainders(or 1:1 2:1, see below)

3:2 3:0. Now if the opponent taps your 2 hand, you tap back with your 3 hand. If he splits to 2:1, tap his 2 hand with your 3 hand.

You Opponent

1:1 2:0

1:1 3:0

1:1 2:1

2:0 2:1, so now your opponent can't split to 3:0. He won't tap you to 3:0 and die.

4:0 2:1

2:2 2:1, so same as above

4:2 2:1

3:3 2:1

. Also, while it's probably impractical without recording, what about not being allowed to make moves that result in the same configuration as an earlier turn (and whose turn it is is also the same)? When playing with a special rule, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.185.226 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chopsticks (handgame)

I can't find any sources calling this game "Magic Fingers" so unless anyone can present a source that does I think the article should be renamed "Chopsticks (handgame)"--Independentdependent 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sections

The Gameplay and Alternate Explanation sections of this article need to be merged into one section, combining the best description from each. Or we could just delete one section in favor of the other. --Politizer (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Two clarifications needed:

1. How is the "Splits" version different from the original? It says in the "splits" version, if you have an even number of fingers on one hand you can tap your hands together and split them evenly (so 4:0 becomes 2:2 for example). But can't you also do this in the original version? There is nothing in the description of the original version that suggests such "splitting" would be forbidden. From the way things look now, it doesn't look like "splits" is a variant at all, but merely one possible action you could take in the regular game.

2. "Overlap" and "Leftovers" look the same to me. Is there some subtle difference between them?

Stonemason89 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I came here to find out how to play this but am none the wiser. Yes, I know that WP is not an instruction manual but it should include sufficient (and clear) information on the rules. Meanwhile people add articles on their favourite D-grade "celebrity" or their entirely non-noteworthy school. Grumble, grumble... 203.59.126.178 (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

The 'Moves' section states that the possible moves are:
Under normal rules, there are a maximum of 14 possible moves:
- Four attacks (A-C, A-D, B-C, B-D)
- Four divisions (02–11, 03–12, 04–13, 04–22)
- Six transfers (13–22, 22–13, 14–23, 23–14, 24–33, 33–24)
However, nowhere in the 'Rules' section does it say you can't leave zero fingers on a hand by transferring, or that you can't just swap your two hands over. Thus the rules imply that 11-02, 12-03, 12-12, 13-04, 13-13, 22-04, 14-14, 23-23, 24-24 and 34-34 are all possible moves. The sources seem to give slightly different rules from each other, and we don't seem to have a definitive source.
"However, players are required to attack at least once during the game." How does this work? Is it an illegal move to kill a player if they haven't attacked yet, thereby making it part of the strategy to force your opponent to attack sooner or later? (I can see that whether this is an issue depends on the exact rules.)
"The longest possible game that gets farther from the starting point with each move is 9 moves." What metric is being used here to measure distance between positions?

— Smjg (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smjg. While copy editing the article, I tried to address these issues you point out. I think they are decently explained now, despite the lack of a definitive source. Among the current sources, splitting rules lack consensus. In regard to #1, while no source explicitly forbids leaving zero points on a hand by transferring ("suicide"), some allow it, so I opted to present it as a rule variation. Cheers ~ Jayowyn (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]