[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier List of fairy pieces. A long list of fairy piece name and sources.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anonymous wrote on 2010-07-11 UTCI know, maybe, it's stupid (and, most probably, not right), but i thin that Xiang-qi symbolizes war of China (red) and Indian (black). Red uses ministers and cannons, black uses elephants and catapults. In ancient China elephants was not used in battles and Chinese people invented cannons. H. G. Muller wrote on 2009-12-29 UTCThe Chinese sometimes use different names for the red and the black pieces, and I think that they use Catapult for the Cannon's of one side. Just like they use Minister in stead of Elephant for that side. Garth Wallace wrote on 2009-12-28 UTCThis list gives 'catapult' as a piece in xiangqi. I assume that refers to the cannon? George Duke wrote on 2008-04-25 UTCExcellent ★★★★★How to make a CV is an art for everyone. Brodsky says, ''When it comes to poetry, every bourgeois is a Plato.'' Here is the recently-advocated HORSE method: H: Hunter So much for the piece selection. O: Octopus, Orix, Overtaker Thanks to Frank Truelove for R: Rettah the list. S: Switcher Allons-nous to our own thread E: Equerry for assembling next? George Duke wrote on 2008-04-24 UTCFor anyone wanting to design a new CV, here is a good list of pieces for selection from Pritchard's 'ECV' (1994) and Dickens' 'A Guide to Fairy Chess'(1969). Notice for example ''Elephant'' has been used in Baroda Chess, Burmese, Cambodian, Chaturaji, Chaturanga, Ciccolini's Game, Congo, Decimal Oriental, Great Chess, Korean Chess, Persian Chess III, Shataranja, Xiangqi. The name ''Elephant'' that is. Jeremy Good wrote on 2007-08-30 UTCCuriously enough, 'Good' is actually more common than 'Goode' - compare the two in your phone book. George Duke wrote on 2007-08-30 UTCJJoyce asks under 'Multiform': 'How many people actually read this board?' Answer, probably closer to 10 than 100 are really following with comprehension the Multiform thread, 'Complementarity' article/Comments and 'Short-Range' article's Comments, as well as our own 'FatallyFlawed' thread -- all four more or less about proliferation of Rules-Sets/pieces. There are some neat complementary pieces proposed or revived. As Commenter, I have not myself yet dissected STrenholme's recent long Comment on pieces for example, and we spend a lot of time at this, and intend to try to relate Trenholme's and JGoode's lists to what RBetza already did. Precisely because JJoyce's system is work-in-progress, there are fewer close readers, because people prefer a finished product and to be told that 'thus and such' are the categories/criteria on pieces/values. Experts lay the groundwork and everyone will follow, including the next Bobby Fischers or Paul Morphys. Lately, Mark Thompson(about Omega Chess), JGoode and Greg Strong(about some CV of their own) have also chided, 'Did you play it?' It needs to be drilled in that is all but impossible for every wild idea. One cannot really play-test with discrimination more than 1 or 2 Rules-Sets a day. Proof that Falcon is an actual mathematical complement of R,N,B, we may as well start in own established threads, not expecting anymore the simpleminded attacks of the early aughts(Aughts are present decade following the nineties, right?, getting back to basics). Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-08-29 UTCQuite a list, but it leaves one wishing for more info. Sam and Jeremy have made some nice starts on adding that info, with their articles on pieces. George, you made 2 statements in your comment here: 'we need the right evaluative criteria' 'It seems incumbent to develop systematic judging by principles other than playing.' We are seeing new pieces [and boards], and new ways of looking at them and their values, appearing now. These developments just may give us useful tools to examine pieces beyond the FIDE mix with some accuracy. The comment was made:'Recently some have used the old cliche, 'Have you played it?''. As I was a leading proponent of that idea recently, I thought I might answer a small rebuttal. When you're in familiar territory, Mike Howe is right, you can make good judgements from careful reading, analysis, and mentally pushing some pieces to check interactions arising from the specific board, piece set and setup... For genuinely new pieces, boards or setups, I think one must push pieces long enough to gain the experience to make a good judgement in that unfamiliar territory. Finally, George, ''The Deranged Project''??? Lol! A thought I had myself often during its production. Now, I don't know about the project, but I'm certain I'm deranged and that project proves it. [Ms Bagley-Jones astutely bailed after her part in our combined insanity, apparently giving it - the insanity - up and returning to normality. Pity. She made good pieces and innovative games as well as all our ZRFs.] I'd be happy to welcome you to it. Your Falcon is a very pretty shortrange piece with a somewhat complex exact movement description. How do *you* think *it* fares against the unlimited sliders? George Duke wrote on 2007-08-28 UTCHere are several hundred more from an earlier generation's try (1998 article) for recent threads 'Multiform' and 'FatallyFlawed' and also 'Complementarity' and 'ShortRange Project'. Figure about half these would ShortRange-qualify, and when we called it 'The Deranged Project' to JGood last year, hey were just kidding, because in fact are, and further intending to contribute. With our tentative best alternative to RN and BN as (R,Mao) and (B,Moa) instead, seriously thinking they are superior, we need the right evaluative criteria. Recently some have used the old cliche, 'Have you played it?' That was popular around 2001 or 2002, and had died out after Michael Howe averred that a trained observer can tell how a game plays just perusing the Rules. Case closed, tacit agreement came because, of course, it is impossible to do justice playing 10,000 different Chesses. My corroborating Comment in 2004 was that a good game surely warrants 10 days(hour a day), and multiply 10 days by 4000 CVs, and that 40,000 days have been reached by only maybe 1,000-10,000 out of the total 100 billion humans that ever lived. So, realistically, who can conceivably keep up? This List does not define all its pieces but they can be found. In a random sample, letter K, letter T, we know about half of them right away and where to go for about half more, so 'List of Fairy Pieces' 75% comprehensible. Which are only fanciful? Or are some more important than others? It seems incumbent to develop systematic judging by principles other than playing. Excuse this Comment's mixing together in the general idea mere pieces and actual full-fledged CVs, there being some rough comparability if only in the utter lack of limit to inventiveness. [Also, later noticing that Truelove's own Comment says all pieces in this particular list are from DP's 1994 ECV] Frank Truelove wrote on 2004-05-29 UTCMy information on Chess comes only from D. B. Pritchard's 'Encyclopedia of Chess Variants', Games & Puzzles Publications, Surrey, UK, 1994. John Ayer wrote on 2004-03-30 UTCGood ★★★★Mr. Truelove knows something about Chezz, and lists pieces that were not described in the only document where I ever saw Chezz mentioned. Where is this information available, or when will we see it? 11 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.