[ 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 Man and Beast 12: Alternative Fronts. Systematic naming of pieces using complex mixes of forward, backward, and same-rank moves.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]KelvinFox wrote on 2020-03-21 UTCThe Haddock on this page is a pretty weak piece. Of can reach some squares only in 13 moves George Duke wrote on 2012-05-11 UTCIt's not doable to comprehend even one M&Bxx chapter in a single sitting. Most would not enjoy reading a full section of the intended reference at once. This chapter is chosen right now because it is where Ranker and Filer are defined. CamelFiler was explained the last comment down to the detail of its exact arrival squares numbering 4 in open board. Even getting that specific may escape some individual's grasp. One reason is that involved cvers can get wrapped up in their own CVs exclusively and not follow others' work. Another, it is anyone's privilege not to care about a technical topic or discussion (the way one reads the Sports Page and another Business Page of New York Times). CamelFiler is one of 100 or 200 or more separate, specific p-ts having the sort of mode of moving aslant, or oblique, in ''wide'' directions you could say. Here ''wide'' means more files than ranks. That very definition is in this article, and the other one is Ranker moving more ranks than files -- when the x- and y-directions are separated out and tallied. No doubt Charles Gilman's material in M&Bxxs alone, excluding the CVs, surpasses Ralph Betza's in content by a factor of 10 or even 20, comparing to Ralph/s series ''Ideal & Practical Values.'' It is Betza who makes sport of CVs as he goes, and instead Gilman takes the subject seriously. There is really no comparison at all, Betza to Gilman, partly because the content of the field has probably tripled since Betza left 10 years ago. As a result, his knowledge is a pittance compared to Charles'.________________Regarding the Ranker/Filer class, what would be the point, now that Ranker and Filer are defined, to act like some characteristic case-in-point ZebraRanker is a new p-t. It is not because it is implied, whether or not specifically mentioned by the Ranker definition. ZebraRanker moves not standard Zebra's 8, but just 4 from starting square e4 to any of g7, g1, c7, c1. That's it, specific as it is useful. You cannot declare ZebraRanker a new invention any more than 100 others strictly ranker/filer subgroup, but please invent new CVs utilizing them one and all.________________________________The other Chapter linked, or commented yesterday rather, is Number 16 ''Diverging Further'' this same groundbreaking series. That 'M&B16' continues naming and defining divergent piece-types, that move and capture differently. The classic examples are Western Pawn and Eastern Cannon(M&B02). Of the 100 suffixes applying to rectangles of squares, 20 or 30 will be found to carry divergency weight. Charles Gilman wrote on 2011-10-07 UTCMAB 12 Well the introduction to each index page contyains the sentence 'Then comes the geometry, with a link to the Man and Beast page...' The reason for doing it this way is because some pieces are, for example, defined in MAB 05 as cubic pieces and MAB 14 for one or more hex geometries, and so haev a link for each geometry. The Lobster isn't the kind of piece that I would have invented, so it takes quite some defining. I plan to update this page to mention switching cycles, and could clarify the Lobster move, especially distinguishing between 2d and 3d. George Duke wrote on 2011-10-05 UTCOkay, Lobster appears here but 2-d Lobster may, or may not be defined in M&B12. The object is to run down and respond to Gilman's last comment's last paragraph at Crab. Gilman's side point, before the interesting switching cycle terminology, is about a return in 3 without compound of duals, but Lobster definition could be Alfil plus Ferz by the example. Lobster is Tusk plus Crosscoward, right? That is locatable eventually, but even the necessary Glossary, now through 'M', does not cite chapters. So, still anyone spotting them first, please say here what referenced Lobster is compound of. Somebody must know Tusk, however how many know Crosscoward? There would be many more returns-in-3 capabilities that are not compound of duals(always having one colour-switching and other not) of course, such as Lemurian Shatranj's Bent Hero and Bent Shaman. Those novelties of Joyce are weak example for this, though kind of identical to Charles', because of questionable pass-over squares but having the same navigation as that 'a1-c3-b2-a1'. ////// ____ Added 24 hrs. later, because of no intervention: Charles' last comment at Crab is excellent except for understanding the terms. As representative, please anyone besides Gilman, define move of Lobster. This 4-year-old 'M&B12', now first being commented, is suitable place to come to grips with the piece-type Lobster, because ''Crosscoward'' is also here in third paragraph under ''pieces.'' Lobster is at second paragraph before ''Notes.'' Browse throughout and back to earlier 'M&Bxx' for which two parts make up bi-compound Lobster. A very do-able task: just settle in mind what are Tusk and Crosscoward and we have Lobster. Then there would be one example for switching cycle 3, to find other piece-type instances having its similar attribute. 4 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.