Enter Your Reply

Gee, Larry, don't you know the only description of the knight's move is
'out 2 and over 1'? (Or was that up 1 and over 2?) Anyway, that has to be
the description because that's how you count the move out in 4D chess. So
we gotta use my way... not. There are many ways to describe the moves of
pieces, and many reasons why the movement rules are written the way they
are. But without some standards, no one will know what the heck anyone else
has done. 

Still, alternative ways to describe moves will be used for the foreseeable
future. And actually, that knight move description is true of my version of
Hyperchess. Unless I can give everyone 4D glasses with the game rules, the
only real way to figure the knight's move in 4D is to count it out. Thus,
'2 and 1', rather than a 2x3 rectangle, which is much harder to visualize
on a 4D board. And it points out the real problem we have of defining moves
so that others can understand them. 

I would propose a very simple system, based on the footprints of the
pieces, to give the exact shape/pattern of the move, and hope against hope
that is enough. Otherwise, the task is monumental, and needs several people
with different talents, most likely. I can assure you one is not enough,
nor are two, unless they have an amazing amount of time to work on it and
discuss the project. [You might check out the attempt at the CVwiki; it's
an illustration of the difficulties involved.]

The problem is that I don't really believe there is a very simple system
to do this, so we're screwed, so to speak. We'd [most likely] have to use
'atoms' into which the pieces are broken down, and the pieces would have
to also have 'flavors', like mode of capture, method[s] of transit from
beginning location to ending, whether it's self-moving or requires
activation to do anything, special features, eg: royal...