[ 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 Triangular Chess. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Gilman wrote on 2007-06-06 UTCOn reading 'Rooks and Knights are colourbound but Bishops are not' I wondered why, and had a closer look at the moves. This drew other anomalies to my attention - that the 'Bishop' had a move made of shorter steps than the 'Rook' - so that two steps by a 'Bishop' in a straight line, rather than a singler such step, equal two 'Rook' steps at an angle. It occurred to me that it would make more sense to swap the names round, call the 'Knight' a 'Camel', and reserve the term 'Knight' for a piece leaping to the nearest cell not reachable by a Rook or Bishop move. It's not as if there isn't room for another type of piece on this many cells. That would then make the following statements true in this geometry that are true on a square-cell board: 'The Rook and Knight are not colourbound - they can eventually reach any cell on the board.' 'The Bishop and Camel are colourbound - they can reach only cells of the same colour.' 'The Knight is colourswitching - it always start and ends a move on cells of opposite colours.' 'The Knight leaps to the nearest cell not reachable by a Rook or Bishop move.' 'The Camel leaps to the nearest same-colour cell not reachable by a Rook or Bishop move.' 'A 2n-step move by a Crooked Bishop has the same destination as a 2n-step move by a (straight) Rook.' 'A 3-step move by a Crooked Rook has the same destination as a Knight leap.' 'A 3-step move by a Crooked Bishop has the same destination as a Camel leap.' I was going to add 'A 2n-step move by a Crooked Rook has the same destination as an n-step move by a (straight) Bishop.' but on closer investigation that's only for Crooked Rook steps through edges - through vertices it's a 2n-step move by both. Even so, it's a lot closer to the square-cell nomenclature. Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.