Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Hi Christine

No that piece has not been invented in the Middle Ages. This is just wrong. According to Monté, a chess historian, this piece was suggested by Lucena as the promoted pawn in his treatise of 1497. This is the earliest allusion to it.

Then, it seems that some players of modern chess in Italy, i.e. after the reform which occured at the end of the 15th c., were using it in place of the Queen and they were calling it Donnacavallo (which means a horse-riding lady). That was criticized by Carrera, then by Philidor.

There are testimonies that this piece was used instead of the Queen by some players in Russia and Georgia in 1770-1820. At the same period it appears in Gustav III's Chess in Sweden as Adjudant-General.

Then, the piece is found in several chess variants in the 19th century in Europe (called Commander) and also in India (called Giraffe or Prince). The name Amazon was used and popularized by chess problemists in the early 20th c.

It says here ..

'The Amazon was invented (but not under this name) in the middle ages'.

So, where is this info from, do we know the name of it when it was invented.

Also, it appears with the list of games from earliest on record here, first game mentioned is 'Amazon Chess' from Middle Ages, and it is called an 'Amazon'.

Anyways, just wondering if we know the first name given to it.

I agree

Chess sets come in many forms. I have seen sets consiting of all frogs, or all sheep, Star Wars characters or those from the Asterix comics. I experience the required detail as a bit distracting when you want to actually play with them, rather then just showcase them for ornamental purposes. For playing I prefer somewhat more abstracted pieces, such as Staunton style, like the wooden Superchess pieces.

I don't see much added value in adding images of pieces in a style not very suitable for play, that only exist virtually, so that no one could obtain them anyway.

I actually rather like both of these. I've seen real chess sets with similar aesthetics, particularly the Amazon, and I could see these as welcome additions to either one. (The Terror is certainly superior to my own effort.)

The last two at the bottom are nice figurines but they are not evoking chess pieces. I wonder their added value for that page.

There are several existing 3D design of Amazon on the web by mixing Queen and Knight figures. I have a collection of them. If one prefers an abstract design, the piece made for the first set of Musketeer Chess (originally called a Dragon, but then Zied regretted it) was a rather good alternative.

Spoilsport. ;)

I added some new AI art to this page. Besides the picture of a Queen/Knight compound, there is now an image of a Terror and of a figurine Amazon piece.

There is also the possibility of incorporating a combo of queen and knight moves into a game exclusively on a temporary basis, as I did in my variant 'Bull's eye'.

I do wonder that there's no article here on the Amazonrider (aka Queen of the Night, though I personally prefer Centauride or Virtuoso).

Or at least a mention here, or on the Nightrider page.

I've read here and there about the Amazon piece type having a bad rap because it's so powerful, which immediately gave me a soft spot for the lady - why does she not really deserve to exist? As David P. noted, Amazons were used in place of queens on 8x8 (chess otherwise), some centuries ago in parts of Russia (called Amazon Chess on this website).

Like Fergus noted elsewhere, powerful pieces are best used on large sized boards, and I think Amazons are best employed this way, too. A more recently invented game where they are used is in my own 10x10 Sac Chess, where each side in fact has two Amazons in the setup, besides many other powerful pieces, which goes against power density theory that I was unaware of when inventing it - luckily the game seems quite playable, and is currently in the top 30 of Game Courier (maybe thus deserving a mention in this Piececlopedia article, if it's eventually updated).

Oh, I see. For example RookKnights on the a-file, and Amazons on the
h-file. Sure, that's good stuff. All double and triple compound pieces
can be used that way- 2 at a time as above, or even 4 at a time,
replacing
4 of the rooks knights and bishops in the original line up.
 By the way, I dislike using 6 new pieces. For example a- file cardinals,
b-file squirrels, c-file amazons, f-file centaurs, g-file RookKings, and
h-file BishopKnightKings or whatever. The problem with 6 new pieces, in
my
humble opinion, is that too many basic chessmen are eliminated from the
game. 
  New pieces are great, but the interaction of the basic pieces with the
unorthodox pieces is interesting, entertaining, and not to be missed.
  I always like to keep the queens in the starting array for this reason.

More detail about the original Amazons can be found on
http://www.karpov.ru/katalog/_9th_en.php, a page showing a novelty set
based on a battle of the sexes in Classical mythology. Shakespeare used
the outcome as the backdrop to a Midsummer Night's Dream.