The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

This item is an article on pieces
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2014-08-10
 By Charles  Gilman. Man and Beast 03: From Ungulates Outward. Systematic naming of the simplest Oblique Pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on 2009-06-20 UTC
Okay. With Gilman's indulgence we keep it still basic (and only square-based), to win a few more converts to systematizing. The duals will all end in -el, because Camel and Knight are duals, and Camel has been around a long time. Move from a starting square twice as Knight and back to same square as a Camel: duals: duals triangulating back. Oblique triangulators end in -u, because Gnu has been around for a long time, and Camel + Knight is Gnu, meaning Gnu is sure to be the second compound triangulator. What is the first one? Why non-royal King, compound of Wazir + Ferz; 1,2,3. Gilman's is a system of nomenclature. Some amateur-night designer may already be using Gnu(C+N) once in a while in fantastical back-rank for no other reason than he wants more choice in jumping. He can well go through life never knowing about duals or triangulation and still make lots of CV art. For smart people let's try Zebra + Zemel = Zebu. 2,3 has leap length of root-13 and SOLL 13. Twice that is 26 and sure enough there are corresponding squares 25 and 1, so Zemel is 5,1. (I am surpirsed 5,1 is not previously named) Anyway now a piece can move from b1 to d4 to g2 and back to b1, triangulating, and call that compound of duals Zebu. All ratings of a M&B will be 'Excellent' but some few chapters will just not have rating for minor protest, nothing in between. One weakness throughout is lack of dates of invention. Highly sensitive to cultural history is Gilman, unlike lesser designers who are anti-historical let alone ahistorical. My instinct is to refer to any pieces the first time by year or period. For example, 13th century Gryphon, 17th century Centaur(BN), 1907 Unicorn, circa 1912 Nightrider, 1940s Hunter and Falcon of Schultz, 1970s Angel of Conway, 1992 Falcon, 2005 Promoter. A major question later will be, to what extent does all this knowledge algebraic and geometric make better rules-sets mind to mind?