[ 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 ]Rated Comments for a Single ItemLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Turning chess. Pieces can turn 45 degrees after movement. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2008-07-19 UTCGood ★★★★In Turning Chess, Betza's first example is Pawn 1 f2-f3 (turns right), 2 f3-g4 (right) 3 g4-h4 (no turn). That Pawn can never move again. Notice the optional ''turning'' after a move is always 1/8, same as saying 45 degrees. Betza postulates Turning Bishop and Rook having same value. In 2004 Comment Gilman takes exception that there is no such thing as Turning Knight, alleged by Betza within the article, and rather Knight turned logically becomes Camel. It leads Gilman in subsequent years to explore in depth all the angles involved for purposes of nomenclature, classification, and further invention of fairy-Chess-piece moving modalities. David Paulowich wrote on 2007-06-06 UTCGood ★★★★I believe Ralph Betza is saying that a Mao becomes a Moa, and vice-versa, after what he calls a 45 degree turn. Thus the Knight is unchanged by turning. With regard to Charles Gilman's comment, I must admit that I find the Camel uninteresting, both as a chess player and a mathematician. 2 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.