Miscellaneous desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 23

Chesseckers

Basically, standard 8x8 board, white plays with a full chess team, black plays with a full checkers team. Both sides play with the rules of their game and try to win the proper way (white wants to remove all checkers from the board, black wants to checkmate the white king.)

My questions:

1) In this game, which team has an advantage? 2) If necessary, what possible rule changes would balance the game while still keeping it as close to the original as possible. (The most obvious needed fix, somehow make sure white can't just win by hiding her king on white squares the whole game.)

This is a thought experiment, hope people want to have fun discussing it. I love thinking about game balance, so I wanted to try to examine two of the most famous games in existence, especially considering their similarities. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to complete the rules first, before we can comment on who has the advantage. As you pointed out, checkers only uses 32 squares, giving the chess pieces the advantage of using all 64. A double row of chess pieces would also prevent any checkers from jumping them. As far as strategy, the chess player could just move his queen to the back row of the checkers, and take checkers at will. StuRat (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest fix I can think for that an other problems would be to give the checkers player a full set of checkers that sit on the white squares as well. So his three rows would be filled square to square with checkers. Would that fix the problems? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to set up a game and play it against yourself? Then you would find who wins everytime, and figure out the flows. --Lgriot (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Some OR here): I have never seen this version, where each player is playing a different game, but I have seen people playing both chess and checkers at the same time. The checkers are under the chess pieces, and each player gets the option of making a chess move or a checkers move during his/her turn. To win, one must win in both games. Each player winning a game results in a draw. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am/was thinking about the same idea: Checkers vs. Chess, and created some variants.

How I am making it and some answers:

I was thinking about creating some variant that you would have chess pieces vs. checkers ones, merging the games rules.

But first there is some problem, how checkers will work? Checkers unlike chess, have many default variants, what checkers game we will use?

To pick the chess variant I would use, I used the main list of wikipedia and excluded the ones that doenst have an 8x8 board, this reduce our list to 14 variants.

Then I removed from this list the ones where black start first, since we are merging both games, if black started first in checkers this would create some paradox. What player would move first?. Now we have 10 variants.

After that, variants where boards have different black and white squares positions and black is not on top row were removed from the list, the list was reduced to (brazillian, spanish, russian, czech, argentinan, Turkish, armenian, Myanmar) 8 variants.

Ok we found the rules we will use. But there is some problem, how we will merge the checker rules with chess ones? Some rules contradict with others, checkers has forced capture as an example, while chess doest have it. In checkers you need to capture all pieces to win, but that would be impossible in chess and checkers doenst have the chess king to be mated. Based on that we have 3 choices:

A)Assume each rule that only happens in an specific game is some rule that the pieces of this game has (one example, losing after mate would be the rule of the king piece and not the rule of the chess game)

B)Assume those rules are rules of the game and use chess ones.

C)Assume those rules are the rules of the game and use checkers ones.

If, we used C, checkers would not be able to win since we woulnd't be able to mate the enemy chess king (since he would still have the anti-check rule), if we used B checkers wouldnt be able to lose because he doenst have the chess king piece (to be able to be mated and lose), so I decided to use A.

Anyway, I started to create some Zillions of Games games, and right now made Chess vs. Brazillian Checkers, Chess vs. Czech Checkers, Chess vs. Armenian Checkers, Chess vs. Turkish Checkers, to each one of those variants I made some sub-variant where checkers is the white pieces (is on white position, start first...) and another where chess is the white pieces (is on white pieces position, start first...).

I started to create it, but is not finished yet, because...

Chess:

Has forced treefold repetition rule, can't request a draw, or can't force an draw under 50 moves or no pawn capture rules and impossibility of checkmate.

Draughts:

Can't multicapture and in the case the game has specific ways of doing the forced capture my games doenst have it yet.

Right now without the stuff I said that aren't on my games, its almost impossible to checkers win, even the armenian one that is the strongest one (16 mens on the second and third rows, move foward, sideways and in an diagonal way, capture foward and sideways by jumping over pieces), has almost no chance to win against chess.

Yes my variant doenst have multicapture yet, and if implemented this would change ALOT the game, but even that wouldn't be enought to make checkers have some chance.

Here, I uploaded the PLAYABLE zillion of games WIP file in sendspace, if you want to try, get it here http://www.sendspace.com/file/l5fpe7

Remember you will need zillion of games to play it.201.78.151.30 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low-cost flag carriers

At present, are there any flag carriers that operate on a low cost model? Not as in low-cost subsidiaries of flag carriers like Airphil Express for Philippine Airlines or Jin Air for Korean Air, but as in actual flag carriers that are low-cost carriers. Are there any? If none, why? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus is described as "competition to the European no-frills airlines" in our article. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any references, but I can think of at least three logical reasons that there are very few or none:

• According to low-cost carrier, the low-cost business model didn't become common until after the Vietnam War, when most flag carriers had already been established.

• Many flag carriers are wholly or mostly owned by the government, who might be more likely to value prestige over absolute profitability, at least to an extent

• Many low-cost airlines use a point-to-point transit model, whereas the hub and spoke model is more common with traditional airlines. In the EU, where countries are geographically small (relative to the US or Russia or China) and airlines have eighth and ninth freedom rights, a consequence of this system is that many low-cost airline flights neither take off nor land in the airline's home country - for example, most Ryanair flights take place entirely outside of Ireland. In a situation like this, it might be seen as strange or inappropriate for that airline to serve as its nation's flag carrier.

-Elmer Clark (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an affordable Master's program taught in English within the European Union

I would like to study an IT related subject for a Master's. US and UK universities are extremely expensive so I've decided to apply to universities in the European Union. I know there are a few countries that have some tuition free Master's programs taught in English (Norway and Finland). In addition to those two countries are there other countries that offer high quality university education for very low cost? Thanks for your help.

Cliffbament (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Norway is, of course, not a member of the European Union]! (This is the one that always catches people out). The answer may also substantially depend on whether you yourself are an EU citizen. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent [BBC article] about the good value of Maastricht university, which teaches in English. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you explored the Open University? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable is a relative concept. How much should it cost? OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I always wonder what TV ads mean when they claim the product is "affordable". Affordable by whom? The Queen? Or meaningless waffle like "It may not cost as much as you may think". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That's a cousin to the old reliable, "competitively priced". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany depending on the state the programs are either free or cost a nominal fee (hundreds per semester). At the Master's level there are quite a few in English. However if you come here on a student visa, you have to keep in mind that you are only allowed to work very limited hours. That means that even being optimistic about your workload generally you will not be able to earn a living as you go along. So you would need to finance that somehow. KarlLohmann (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems many European universities are catering for the British market in students unwilling or unable to pay £9000 per year. For example, I know of various courses, taught in English in the Netherlands and Italy. In researching this, I came across this site which lists many courses, including a Masters in Computer Science in Germany. As for costs, a couple of years ago I asked a Finnish friend who was studying at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands about his course; he said it was about €1,600 per year. Looking at their tuition fees page, it seems it has gone up a little since. However, it is substantially more if you are not from the EU or EEA. They also do a Masters in Computer Science taught in English. Astronaut (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone who is adopted lose his biological heritage

Hi I was wondering about thie question for sometime I would appreicate any feedback on this Thanks. Does someone who is adopted lose his biological heritage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysoljoe (talk • contribs) 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the adoptive parents are mad scientists with world-changing genetic engineering or time-travel technology that hasn't successfully been created yet. Now, would cultural perceptions targeting the child's phenotypes change? Maybe, maybe not, depending on the society and phenotypes involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point: An adopted child may lose cultural connection (the language, food, access to literature, religion, etc.) to their born culture (depending on how early they were adopted and/or whether or not their parents choose to keep them immersed in their birth culture); but they cannot lose their genetics. They will still, for example, be suceptible to the same genetic disorders as they had before being adopted; their eye and hair color will remain unchanged, etc. Some biological things, like height and weight, which are partially environmentally controlled will, of course, change based on who they are adopted by. --Jayron32 17:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nature vs. nurture issue was explored to some extent in a news story a few years ago, where it turned out that two babies had been switched at birth, so were in effect "adoptive". One family was more gregarious and outgoing, the other was more reserved and bookish. And the two "adoptees" never quite fit in with the families they were raised in. There was something of their genetic makeup that their respective families' way of living couldn't defeat.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it's good that you've tried to provide a source, relying on anecdotes isn't a good route to an answer. Despite the emotional appeal of a switched-at-birth drama (of the sort that touchy-feely soft news producers just love, especially when it can be molded to fit a preferred commentary), it's not a good idea to rush off and declare one case conclusive. Are there really no shy children born to outgoing parents, or gregarious children of restrained parents?

What our OP will find helpful are the references in our articles on this topic. Bugs has mentioned nature vs. nurture, but it would be good to go one step further and link to nature versus nurture. The related concept of heritability (and all of the sub-articles you'll find there) will also be of interest; heritability attempts to assign a numerical measure to the contribution one's genes (inherited from one's parents) make to one's own traits. Heritability is very strong for traits like blood type; weaker but still significant for things like height or intelligence. Some of the techniques used to examine these concepts are quite interesting, for example twin studies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original question is not clear, but I think it might possibly be asking (in whole or part) whether an "adopted-out" child loses the right to inherit from his or her biological parents. If so, the answer is "generally yes, but you'd need to check the law of the specific jurisdiction in question." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. These days inheritance in the "property and possessions" sense is hardly ever called "heritage", and of course inherited biological traits are not usually called "heritage" either. "Biological heritage", without context, would probably normally be understood to mean existing natural biological diversity, more than anything else. The OP might just have to come back and clarify the question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the OP meant that if you are, for example, black and get adopted by white parents, would you still identify with black culture? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving

Why isn't thanksgiving celebrated in the UK in the way that it is in America? I am just wondering, as you, unfairly, get an extra day off of school which I damn well deserve, but am not allowed to have. Am I being unfairly treated about this? You go crazy over it and yet not one single bloody turkey is consumed on the other side of the Atlantic. Should I be alarmed about this? I am needlessly bombarded with Thanksgiving all over my telly, where a lot of programmes are from the USA. Thanks. 92.0.110.196 (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because Thanksgiving refers to the Pilgrim Fathers giving thanks for being safely ensconced over the other side of the Atlantic from us, and we never saw fit to celebrate getting rid of these religions extremists ;) I think you'll find they also get Labor Day as a holiday, and we don't. It all evens out in the end! --TammyMoet (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Academic Term article states that we in the UK attend school for on average 10 more days a year than the Yanks (180 vs 190). Rojomoke (talk) 21:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The harvest still needs our thanks. The Canadians still do it. 92.0.110.196 (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's the Harvest Festival for that. RudolfRed (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What festival? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You folk get Boxing Day and the Queen's various birthdays, while we get bugger-all. So what's the fuss? μηδείς (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's only (some of) the extra-UK Commonwealth realms that have a holiday for the Queen's (fictitious) birthday. In the UK, where she lives and where the whole sorry saga began, it's just another work day. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might as well ask why the Brits don't celebrate July 4th. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what does Scotland celebrate that the US doesn't celebrate? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that and more over at List of holidays by country.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the original poster: The dates and timing of holidays and school seasons may vary by location, but in terms of fairness, the most relevant question might be how many days of school per year. In my part of the USA, the minimum requirement is 180 days for both elementary and secondary schools. You might want to check whether your school calendar includes fewer or more days than that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"All maintained schools and non maintained special schools must open to educate their pupils for at least 380 half-day sessions (190 days) in each school year, unless this is reduced by Parliament."[2] Although school kids got an extra day off for the Jubilee this year. Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, why doesn't the UK have such a big harvest celebration as they do in Canada or the USA? Is it my fault? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a big thing before the Reformation in England, after which it went rather out of religious fashion (a bit too Catholic probably). It was revived in England by the Reverend Robert Stephen Hawker in 1843, but no day off as he thoughtfully decided it should be on a Sunday. Why the early Puritan settlers in America made such a big thing about it is a mystery to me, but remember that they didn't do Christmas. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the OP's turkey point - my local Waitrose in London had a shelf-full of Thanksgiving turkeys for sale. I'm sure you could have a Thanksgiving turkey dinner if you really wanted to. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they don't have turkeys for Thanksgiving, my understanding is that having turkeys for Christmas has somewhat taken hold in the UK [3] as it has here in NZ (from that article perhaps even more so there then here) so I assume in most years in recent times, by the time Thanksgiving has come around the Christmas turkeys will be in most stores. Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]