Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Your Prophet is almost the Godzilla, which is Rhinoceros ([W?B]) + Griffin ([F?R]) for [W?B][F?R]. Your description beyond that is a bit muddy; you describe it as leaping to every other space, so it'd be more like [F?DD][W?AA]. Replace the question marks with dashes if it can't stop at the first square; put an n before the DD and AA if it's lame, rather than leaping each step.

On the other hand, I recently proposed a Prophet that's [W-bB] -- it moves one space orthogonally, then turns 135 degress and moves at least one space diagonally. I was thinking of putting it on some huge-board game (12x12 or 16x16) some time.

Your description beyond that is a bit muddy; you describe it as leaping to every other space, so it'd be more like [F?DD][W?AA].

To every second space (read more attentively). But, well, it's possible to remake its name.

Made, renamed Prophet to Oracle (very successful renaming!) and clarified;) diagrams will be later

To every second space (read more attentively)

‘Every other space’ means the same thing in English

There’re many hippogonal movers, pieces that ride orthogonally or diagonally; what if there’ll be pieces who ride hexagonally?

It's certainly an interesting way of describing the Hexmaster (previously described by Gilman as the admittedly uninspiringly‐named Short‐Switchback Rhino [EDIT: actually it's not quite the same piece; this one lacks the main‐orthogonal W step]), if geometrically a strange one.

[the Hexmaster's] trajectory is really like DNA chain

In a very different way from the Helical Bishop aka Zigzag Bishop (as named by Fergus and Betza respectively). I don't think anyone's ever combined the two ideas, though at that point we start reaching the limit of reasonable move complexity (and a full cycle needs a Really Big Board)

Axeman (also Halberd) is Charles Gilman’s Caddied Pawn

Strictly speaking Gilman's Caddied Pawn can only make the forwardmost captures (per his usual definition of FO). I suppose this'd be a Supercaddied pawn? It's not really clear given that the super‐ prefix normally affects the noncapturing pawn component too

Also whilst I apprectiate the attempt, using the name Aanca for the t[FR], while historically more accurate, turns out to be a bit confusing after it was associated with the t[WB] for so long. I'm all for avoiding it in the latter context, but in that case it's probably better to just avoid it altogether imo.

I suppose this'd be a Supercaddied pawn? It's not really clear given that the super‐ prefix normally affects the noncapturing pawn component too

I just wrote that Axeman is based on Caddied Pawn.

This page would benefit from some piece images and setup/move diagrams. Otherwise, it looks pretty decent.

This page is ready now. I did it after long inactivity)

Thank you!

However, how to encode Hexmaster’s XBetza?

I think this is it

aflafrafr(aflaflafrafr)Waflafr(afraflaflafr)Wafl(afrafraflafl)W(aflafrafrafl)Wafraflafl(afrafraflafl)Wafrafl(aflafrafrafl)Wafr(aflaflafrafr)W(afraflaflafr)W

No, should be this

Waflafrafr(alafrafr)Waflafr(afralafr)Wafl(afrafral)Wafraflafl(araflafl)Wafrafl(aflarafl)Wafr(aflaflar)W

afs(afzafq)W(afqafz)W

The author, Lev Grigoriev, has updated this page.

afs(afzafq)W(afqafz)W

No, that is not it; there is no step on the main orthogonals. The repeating unit involves three steps, not two (afzafqaz), and the repeat of it would thus only visit one of ever three squares in the path. So that you would need three moves to cover the entire path. And the plain W would have to be mentioned separately:

Wafs(afzafqaz)Wafsafz(afqazafz)Wafsafzafq(azafzafq)W

I suppose a bracket notation for this could be a lot simpler

[W?fF(?fzW?fqF?fzF)]

The option to terminate the move at the question marks allows collapsing the three different 'phases' into one.

Whoops! I just skimmed the page and assumed it was a Switchback Rhino. Bracket doesn't seem to work.

I don't think combining brackets with parentheses is implemented at the moment. I guess some special treatment would be needed there. Currently parentheses are expanded by including mutliple copies of the move they appear in, with 0, 1, 2, ... copies of the parenthesized group. But if the leading or trailing character of the group would be a question mark in bracket notation, the maximum number of repeats already stands for any smaller number of repeats as well.

So it seems the meaning of parentheses in the bracket notation should be changed, to only indicate the maximum number of repeats. (I.e that indicated as a number behind the parentheses, or a default depending on board size.) The repeat group can then be chained by question marks if less repetitive versions of the move were also desired.

The first one made by Daniel works correctly. Thx!