Single Comment

Weird: wired: wider. Excellent article 'A Taxonomy' yet nowhere mentions complementarity. RNB: Rock, Scissors, Paper: R/S S/P P/R: dead or alive. RFNB: Rock Fire Scissors Paper: R/F F/S S/P P/R: alive or dead. [where Knight = Springer and Paper = Book] Metaphorically, Rock breaks Fire, Fire cures Scissors, Scissors cut Paper, Paper covers Rock; Rook, Falcon, Springer, Bishop. There can be seriously but one complement to Falcon, Knight and Rook, namely the Bishop; and so on around the cycle (either way) in four-fold complementarity. Or, think of I.Q. test questions, e.g. one that sequences 'arrow up', arrow right, arrow down and then complete the pattern. '(e) none of the above' is incorrect in the instance there is an 'arrow left'. [So, complementarity existing, any such weird, inferior piece as the old Chu Shogi Lion, mentioned by 'Levi Aho', overlapping fundamental units Bishop, Knight and Rook as that one does, restricting the movements to at most two steps away, is ultimately all too inconsequential -- except in its domain of esoterica. From standpoint of complementarity, 'Chu Shogi Lion' would be in the nature of one more incorrect answer. Any number of such 'wrong' pieces can be dreamt up intellectually in infinite universe of mis-direction. One and all they can even be endlessly classified and played out, simultaneous with only those above four 'complementary' pieces able to clarify a complete and correct picture. Their particular piece-movement dynamics together are forming a sort of saddle point of convergence having in all just the one solution.]