George Duke wrote on Mon, Mar 16, 2009 10:37 PM UTC:
Moving some of this to CbM6 from Ramayana, we need to go back to Ramayana
too for how their pieces traverse the Archipelago. ''Thus mathematics
may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking
about, nor whether what we are saying is true.'' --Bertrand Russell.
How can we be sure of arriving at the equations correctly governing chess
laws? To begin with, Ramayana attributes suggest the proportion
relations: Buddha:Rook = Bison:Falcon = Rakshasa:Bishop =
Knight:(Mao+Moa). Clever, worthwhile, themed Ramayana has board
unsymmetrical in extreme, and we need to check all our work each step of
the way. Why should Castling and En Passant be both ways? Ramayana
excludes en passant, but if it existed, why not only towards the
Archipelago, right for Yellow and left for Red. On regular 8x8, 8x10, and
10x10, why have castling long and short, instead of only on the Kingside?
Two-side versions of e.p. and castling are too taken for granted. In 4000 CVPage CVs, NOT ONE has en passant and/or castling only to one side of the player or the other, always having both conventionally. (Far lesser rules changes entirely warrant here trivial screed ''new CV'' in fatuous CVPage philosophy: examples from all the historical classics Jetan to Shatranj to Xiangqi. Any tiny change
warrants CV of one's own and more-significant-than-many e.p. and/or
castling only to one flank are open for use if you need it.) Anyway not only piece-movement symmetry and completeness, but these two special rules require real justification mathematically before burdening people with various
rules-sets of the making. ''As far as the laws of mathematics refer to
reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.'' --Einstein