Talk:Accordion (card game)

Untitled

Under the default rules, this game is extremely hard to beat all the way down to one pile. I've played hundreds of times and still havent won. I've gotten it down to two at least. The person who showed me the game hasnt beaten it since he learned it over 20 years ago. If you can get it down to one pile, congratufreakinglations, you have done the near-impossible.

The game is not nearly as difficult to win as reputed if played with some care. I have often won twice or more in the same day. Kostaki mou 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that dealing the entire deck out ahead of time? Fomalhaut~enwiki (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The Idle Year

Walter B. Gibson describes another variant of this game, which he says is the original. In this version, all moves must be performed as soon as they become possible. Also, there is no choice in moves: if a card can be moved either to the pile immediately to the left or to that three piles to the left, it must be moved to that immediately to the left. Otherwise, if two moves are simultaneously possible, the leftmost must be performed. Gibson calls this version The Idle Year (which is given as an alternative title for Accordion in Mott-Smith and Morehead). He then describes the "modernised" version of the game, "popularly known as Accordion," in which all moves are voluntary as in the rules given in the article. I suspect that the distinction was a figment of his imagination. The "original" version he describes may deserve its reputation of near-impossibility. Accordion does not.

Kostaki mou 22:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibson was not imagining it: The distinction existed. See, for example, The Idle Year in the 1884 version of Dick's Games of Patience, p. 51ff.

Fomalhaut~enwiki (talk) 06:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. Gibson has only used one source for The Idle Year, probably Dick (1883/84), which is the strictest of four variations. Tarbart (1905) records the most lax version of the rules, also under the name The Idle Year, in which the player may move a card or pile of the same suit or rank onto the preceding card or pile or the one 3 away, "but need not necessarily. Judgment has to be exercised as to whether to play the depots on to one another or not." So there are strict and lax versions of The Idle Year. That said, I have yet to find a version of Accordion that is as strict as Dick's. Usually the rules say a player "may" move if possible and offer a choice between the 1st and 3rd packets to the left if there is one. A couple specify that a further card may be dealt before moving. Either way, it's wrong to say The Idle Year is a stricter variant. Bermicourt (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Accordion v2.jpg

Image:Accordion v2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Accordion v1.jpg

Image:Accordion v1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)