I took the discussion from earlier to heart and to that extent I thought about it and adjusted the rules. The result:
I find the idea that a bishop on d1 can only move to a4 or to H5, or a bishop on e8 can only move to A4 or h5, to be completely illogical.
You can bend it with corners and sides so that it seems logical, but basically, from my point of view, it leads to complicating the rules.
The rule that a switch is a place of decision to occupy the squares of a switch uniquely, no matter from which direction the switch is occupied, seems to be a clear rule that everyone can understand. I do not think that such a rule complicates the course of the game.
The concept implies that unsymmetrical move sequences cannot be excluded. I cannot express it in any other way.
I took the discussion from earlier to heart and to that extent I thought about it and adjusted the rules. The result:
I find the idea that a bishop on d1 can only move to a4 or to H5, or a bishop on e8 can only move to A4 or h5, to be completely illogical.
You can bend it with corners and sides so that it seems logical, but basically, from my point of view, it leads to complicating the rules.
The rule that a switch is a place of decision to occupy the squares of a switch uniquely, no matter from which direction the switch is occupied, seems to be a clear rule that everyone can understand. I do not think that such a rule complicates the course of the game.
The concept implies that unsymmetrical move sequences cannot be excluded. I cannot express it in any other way.