Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.


[ 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
Piececlopedia: Wolf. A doubly-bent rider, inspired by the Gryphon and Aanca.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on Thu, Jul 18, 2013 04:48 PM UTC:
It's really one and the same rule with no need to separate into Case one and Case two. After the diagonal step, the Rook leg whether one, two or more steps, or zero step, confers a direction. There has to be a change of direction of 45 degrees from the diagonal one-step. Then the final diagonal one-step is to either of Alfil or Dabbabah arrival square -- for Wolf moves of only two steps.  All these, Alfil, Dabbabah, Rook and Satyr are under the banner ''Wolf'' and do not even exhaust its arrival squares.  Yet because of the blockability the Wolf is not too strong, about 5.0.

From the departure square Wolf's Rook-specific arrival squares are two-path, and its other squares are only one-path. For instance, to one (2,
5)
 Satyr from starting c3 there is only c3-d4-e4-f4-g4-h5, and any intervening piece blocks the pathway.  Since Dabbabah arrival square is Rook-shared, for Wolf that (0,2) is two-path, and if a piece intervenes
at f4 there is still e3-d4-e5 to get to that Dabbabah/Rook destination.

Thus Wolf though not being a leaper, may be able to move to a Rook square that Rook itself cannot from and to very same departure-and-arrival pair-squares. The same would apply to Fox by Stiles respecting Bishop. Other yet to be invented multi-path piece-types can have many other routes and be generally more interesting than each one's corresponding jumper or compound jumper.  Most interactive with Orthodox pieces are two- three- and four-path. The above Satyr, instead of blanket leap to all (2,5) could have to move as Rook then Mao, making a two-way ''Satire.'' Such Satire is a weakened leaping Satyr, but combine it with (2,2)Alfil, (2,3) Zebra and limited (2,4) NN.  All those four types of squares would follow two legs Rook then Mao, each two-path compounded of (2,2)(2,3)(2,4) and (2,5), having starting estimated value 5.0 again it would appear. 

Be careful the distinction two-way meaning two-path and two-legged meaning serial or sequential movement required. Wolf is three-legged, even if the middle leg is chosen null, and either one- or two-path depending which arrival squares.

(2,2) plus (2,3) plus (2,4) plus (2,5) are in fact Wolf's first four non-Rook arrival squares.  Getting there not by Wolf's three legs, but by two legs, Rook then Mao, call the piece-type Wolverine.

danielmacduff wrote on Tue, Jul 16, 2013 04:22 PM UTC:
Now that makes sense.  You have to turn 45 degrees twice, but not in the same direction.

Ben Reiniger wrote on Mon, Jul 15, 2013 03:33 PM UTC:
I think case 2 of the movement rule makes the idea behind the alfil's inclusion clear, though I agree that as written it shouldn't be included. Assuming the author's intent is correctly displayed by the diagram, how does the following sound. Remove case 2 and insert "(possibly zero squares)" after "and slides like a rook"; is this better? Then perhaps state explicitly that this allows the alfil and dabbabah moves.

danielmacduff wrote on Mon, Jul 15, 2013 02:26 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
How could it move to the Alfil square?

George Duke wrote on Fri, Nov 21, 2008 06:36 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Stiles' Wolf is doubly bent rider, two-path to some but not all its squares.

Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Dec 23, 2006 07:51 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
I have been thinking further about pieces of this kind. It occurs to me that the Wolf can be seen as a compound of two weaker pieces - a 'samewise' Wolf that always makes two left or two right turns, and a 'contrariwise' Wolf that always makes one of each. The first shares the Rook's destinations but by a less direct route, the second those of the Zephyr (Elephant then Rook) but with two turns instead of one. As the 45° nature of the turn does not automatically confine the piece to a single plane in 3d, I suggest specifying that constraint so that the Wolf matches the Fox in still having the same two components (again with more pairs of opposites than just left/right). It could exist in parallel with a Wolverine, whose turns are always neither the same nor opposite, and with left-threaded and right-threaded components, and a Jackal, with 1:1:1 rather than the Wolf's 1:1:0 steps topping and tailing the Rook section. The forward-only versions would still have two components.

Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Jun 5, 2006 06:38 AM UTC:

I have now included this piece in a subvariant of my 4 Linepiece Fusion

This resolves the anomaly of it being in the Piececlopedia but not qualifying. In the process I have also thrown in some names for compounds of this kind of piece.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sat, Oct 2, 2004 11:40 PM UTC:
This page violates the Piececlopedia guidelines and so should be removed. The Piececlopedia is reserved for pieces that have previously appeared in games or fairy chess problems.

8 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.