Comments by nelk114

I can't find his Camel + Antelope, though

CNY is Hajj, listed right after the hovercraft. Which is really at the point where he's starting to stretch for names imo, given ꝥ it's a proper noun. Cantaloupe seems fine to me (and can even extrapolate to Zentaloupe(=Gilman's Sajj) ⁊c. for those so inclined)

Throw in the Mushroom and Falafel, and we have the makings of a Food Fight game!

Pizza Kings for duodecimal CwDA? ;‌P

You are definitely the Master Piecefinder. ;)

I've been here a while ;‌) (and someone has to take over from George Duke…)

Since you more‐or‐less explicitly requested a comment on this from me… :‌p

It's certainly an interesting take on Random setups, quite different from the in some ways superficially similar Universal Chess due to Carlos Cetina. The main potential weakness compared to sth with a bit more player agency such as Pick‐the‐Team is that you're relying on statistics to yield a more‐or‐less balanced setup; sometimes it'll work, sometimes it really won't. And ofc especially with Different Pawns and Kings it's probably hard for any but the most experienced(!) players to tell in advaance how balanced a given piece selection will be. Obviously the usual strategies (two games, switching armies; optional Pie rule, ⁊c.) can help w/ this to an extent, but it's sth to bear in mind.

I'm not totally sure the ‘Introductory Rule’ is likely to be much help; defending against unfamiliar pieces is at least as difficult as handling them oneself (as I learned playing Metamachy)

Is the Arrow Pawn described as intended? As written it's a superset (which I recognise from JWB's Meta‐Chess, though idr the name and I don't have the PDF to hand) of the steward (which is not denoted as a pawn — though it's of comparable strength to — indeed in some cases perhaps weaker than — some of the other pawns)

Ngl upon reading ‘Gold Pawn’ and ‘Silver Pawn’ I was half‐expecting the Gilman pieces :‌p Also I like the Zombie Pawn — it's contageon as in Maka Dai Dai (and H.G.'s several spinoffs) but for the opposite purpose

Is there a special rule for castling with a colourbound corner piece, à la CwDA?

It's a small detail, but whilst I'm not normally a fan of the promotion‐only‐to‐captured‐pieces rule, the way it's done here is a nice touch :‌)

The idea of expansions is pleasant, and perhaps with physical sets (and to a degree with software) even makes sense, but in practice is there any reason not just to pick pieces from e.g. one of the existing Cetina UC lists? At least for regular pieces, since the Royal and Pawn lists for those games are perhaps a little anæmic (though again, one could simply merge the lists). Especially since the main point of this (in common with UC, and arguably Pick‐the‐Piece, among others) is afaict less the actual set of available pieces and more the way they're employed (although ofc the obvious counterargument regarding trying to compile a Canonical List of Pieces is always a thing)

While Brown found the Friend uninteresting from a chess-problem standpoint, I think it has great potential

It seems to me that, especially in these larger numbers, the friend may work much better in games than problems for the same reason that the Orphan and Joker are perhaps more suited to problems: they lack the interplay between the sides, and thus the owner has actual control over their deployment. Orphans and especially Jokers would need enough sufficiently mobile pieces on the board that it's hard to avoid granting them power (somehow not unlike Contramatic Chess. Hmmm…)

Any sliding piece — Archer, Caliph, Lady in Waiting, Mtawala, or Sniper, as well as a Friend trying to use their moves

…or fellow Bodyguard?

A Friend only gets the special initial moves of a Pawn if neither the Pawn granting the ability nor the Friend has moved yet (meaning it can only be done with the help of another Friend).

But how would that other friend get there? Surely if it got there on its own volition it would be considered to have moved, meaning can't have and therefore can't transmit the initial Pawn moves?

Does a Squirrel Displacement not count as movement for the piece being displaced? That would solve this, though it'd also make it possible (indeed necessary for the chain) for a Friend to gain the initial moves directly

the Friend can also receive […] the Displacer Squirrel's ability

So to be clear (purely for my benefit, as I was thrown the first time I read it), the Squirrel can still capture enemy pieces normally?

the Friend can also receive […] the Poison's poison

Iow a Friend captured whilst under the guard of a Poison annihilates its attacker? Is this optional (in the rare case, such as blocking check(mate) that waiving it would be desirable)?

Similarly, are rifle‐capture and/or withdrawal optional, if the friend is also borrowing from a piece that can make the same move w/o the special power? And (if only for completeness) what about Hia power?

gain[ing] moves and abilities from another Friend […] isn't necessarily reciprocal

This is a nice detail, which I'd missed in mỹ own thoughts about this piece. It'll be hell to keep track of though, especially if the false guard is by a third or fourth friend

Any piece adjacent to a Jellyfish cannot move, including leaps, slides, and rifle captures. However, unlike the case with the Bodyguard, this does not affect pieces merely moving past the Jellyfish

I've been meaning to put together mỹ own showcasse game for the (in my case catch‐only) Bodyguard (it's a really nice piece) and was likewise going to include a traditional immobiliser — I find the duality between a piece that impedes long range movement but allows escape and one that completely traps things but allows passers‐by quite pleasing :‌)

Normally, the Friend doesn't gain any of a piece's "special moves" at all, and under Mr. Brown's rules presumably wouldn't gain any special abilities from other pieces either. I've altered that rule for this game; pieces like the Bodyguard, the Displacer Squirrel, and the Jellyfish are here specifically to explore the possibilities.

Strictly speaking, having gone hitherto entirely unused, there's no precedent at all here, and I wouldn't be surprised if Brown's Orphan problems also lack other pieces with special abilities, leaving no precedent there either. And even the Joker, while more popular, tends (I can't recall any exceptions offhand) to be paired only with relatively orthodox pieces…

Of course the interaction of special powers with Orphans and esp. Jokers is substantially more complicated (what does it mean for a joker to imitate Hia power? Not that I don't have mỹ own interpretation…). We'll have to leave that for a notional ‘Grand Imitator Chess’ — I'll certainly give that a go eventually

I have to say I like this a lot. It's a shame it looks like a nightmare to programme; looks like playing it would be a fascinating experience :‌)

Does anyone know of any still‐extant copies of this?

can anyone think of a better adjective than "shoving"?

Depends; why ‘Flash’ for the bishop? Perhaps there's sth matching for that etymology

Are there any "forced movement" tricks that I missed?

A small plenty ;‌)

Slightly fewer tbf if you consider the various pushing pieces (such as Gilman's Shepherding pieces, Jupiter's Tanks, or the Ox of Ben Good's Elevator), and perhaps even Mats Winther's Catapults, redundant w/ the Rook(/Bishop/Queen).

But even so Jupiter also features a Doubler, allowing pieces in its range to move twice (albeit less forced mov't than augmentation cf. the Relay Knight — see also its Relay pieces and the (original) teleporter); Eight‐Piece Chess has, alongside its immobilising Jailer, a Sentry which temporarily takes control of an enemy piece in lieu of capturing it; and of course (among other Betzas) Nemoroth, with its Ghasts, Go Aways (which gain a Come Here counterpart in Jupiter), and Ichor, is built around ‘compulsion’ (i.e. Zwang). To say nothing of the (presumably out oof scope) Tardis and other perhaps less fantastical vehicles

Incidentally the etymology of the surname is quite the fun anecdote :‌) (and to be completely pedantic, Zwang is the noun; ‘to compel’ is zwingen)

Panda is reasonably well‐established already as a term for the slip‐rook, i.e. the piece which can stop on odd‐numbered squares on the rook's path (t[WDD])

There's one main thing left to fix, though it's probably Charles' error: The diagram for the Primate (WB, top right in the last block of diagrams) has a spurious sideways rook move, of a kind which isn't introduced until Alternative Fronts. Idk whether we consider that within the editors' remit though, esp. with Charles gone

Incidentally, the thing with the mathematical expressions (which you note here and also affects this page's degree signs ⟨°⟩) is the same problem as affected this page, among many others across the site. In principle worth fixing though it may be more difficult to do thoroughly, especially if people have edited affected pages in the interim

Per the description as an FO Fearful, the Fearless should have no retreating moves at all. I'd imagine it's a copy‐paste oversight or the like

For me, the tall knight is the only one of these that both suggests its piece (clearly the long leaper, starting where the Orthochess knight does — though I agree with Bob that it has wider applicability) and would fit in with a Staunton‐style set; I kind of guessed the last one (of the original comment) correctly from its mild rookishness but I wouldn't be confident about it; I find the 3rd and 5th almost indistinguishable w/o direct comparison (presumably the scale would help irl)

The king is nice enough for a very ornate set, provided it had suitably ornate companions to match; the chameleon is kinda pushing it tbh (and doesn't even resemble ebony)

The visual pun is quite funny ngl; I wouldn't have said either it or its replacement is terribly suggestive though

I'm presuming Mr. Gilman was using Metropolitan to describe a woman who does the opposite: living among the people in a city, being around them as much as possible.

Per M&B13, Metropolitan is apparently “a rank in many episcopal churches”, presumably the same as described here on Wikipedia; the connection is thus with the Bishop component in the same way that he uses feminine forms to indicate Rook components.

If you can somehow muster a Pallium that'd probably be about as on point as you can get; failing that, perhaps sth cathedral‐like? (Idr whether you've done a cathedral yet; my usual browser setup is reluctant to show the pictures and in any case seventy‐odd pieces is a lot to remember!)

Re Qilin vs Kirin

Fertile Queen is currently hidden as ‘unprocessed’, pending answers (which probably aren't coming, since it's been 3 years) to detail questions

I swear I've seen the moose pawn used, but I am at a loss as to where; I'll definitely keep an eye out.

I did accidentally (on a tangent after looking in vain at Universal Chess as the obvious candidate) find the Hydra though, in Mutatis Mutandis. It just moves as a knight here though (albeit one that transfoms into a variety of NN's); there may well be a more prototypical use.

I may or may not recognise the Shield Archer — certainly UC uses its components for the Fugue pieces; I'm about 50% on the Winged Cardinal (again no idea where though — maybe Charles Daniel??), and I don't recognise tha rest at all

EDIT: Raptor Chess's eponymous piece has an icon similar enough to the WC that I wouldn't want to play a game with both if it could be avoided, even if the different shape of the cross might be considered graphemic

It's an interesting board, but I'm not 100% sure how you're intending the pieces to move. Whilst I can sort of guess, I think diagrams would be really helpful here

Continued from another thread:

Wrt the favouriting threshold, I wonder whether it might be an idea for favourites to be weighted? Such that people with less discriminating tastes who have many ‘favourites’ are weighted less than those who make very selective choices? Seems to me that would incentivise keeping your list short while still allowing the flexibility to show appreciation for many games for those who need(?) it (to which ofc the counterpoint is ꝥ that's what Ratings are for, though those are completely lacking in discoverability and are vulnerable to the same issues). Ofc how to determine the right weighting (obviously(?) it can't just be inverse‐linear) is a potentially subtle question.

the situation where childish inventors would create a massive number of garbage variants just to create voting power

I'd imagine that's what the Editors are there to avoid?

But in general I agree that favouriting your own games is something that really ought to be earned; I'd be tempted to propose that could be factored in to a weighting algorithm too, though at that point it starts becoming really quite complicated

EDIT: looking at this comment thread I see that some form of more complex system has been proposed but at least Ben would prefer it to be a separate system; I'd note two things wrt this suggestion: firstly it would be more complicated, but only on the back end — the user experience (selecting whether or not a game is a ‘favourite’) remains identical; secondly, it seems a little odd to be proliferating systems like this — the Featured Games programme is kinda already on that threshold for me tbh, which is why I haven't really engaged with it (otherwise I probably would have been happy to second Metamachy, f.ex., though I don't disagree with H.G.'s assessment about diversity). Just because it might take a little more than 10s to invent a new discoverability system…

W‐then‐zB turns up as the Harvestman of Seenschach, used as such also in X Chess and Universal Chess as well as mentioned in M&B13, though Gilman never used it himself.

‘Crooked rhino’ seems (to the extent that the rhino itself isn't already crooked) to more closely describe what Gilman called Switchback

Strictly speaking of the names Bob's proposed for the Bt[WzB], only Disciple is not also given to a piece in M&B; the Apostle is a (cubic) qB (moving in rings of 6 steps like the hex Finch whose dual it is) and the Evangelist is another cubic piece combining Picket (cf. Tamerlane) and Eunuch (2 steps nonstandard‐diagonally, i.e. unicornwise).

Only the Apostle has actually seen use though, and it could be argued that unlike the Metropolitan (a name I was surprised to see again tbh) whose move is available on the usual board, these are less important anyway, being 3D‐specific. And Evangelist certainly suits this piece well

I could've sworn I've never seen some of those Utrecht pieces before: the winged pawn, animals with riders, bow and arrow, birds on hind legs, ⁊c are totally new to me fsr… and perhaps even more oddly the Boat (possibly among others) seems to be missing. I'm very curious where these came from

I have to agree about the original Cazaux graphics; while some of them are maybe not quite up to modern standards I've long had a soft spot for them. I'm really fond of the King, the pawn's slightly exaggerated design is rather neat, the Ferz/Wazir/Prince are indeed really nice, as is the Duke; and whilst individually I'm not sure any of the others stand out as particularly appealing (esp. compared to some of the other sets around) the overall æsthetic of the old diagrams that use them I find to be quite pleasing.

That said, I'm excited to see the updated set. And 400 icons (is that 400 or only 200) would seem to me to put it second only to Alfaerie!

Would Propagandist be too on the nose?

Agronomist is (sort of) Gilmanese for the 8:5 leaper (XBetza GXY). Though whether that piece is much use (arguably even in compounds) is a good question

And yeah the Reapman is probably pretty useless; a one‐square difference from what's already a much less interesting piece than the Boyscout.

The Harvestman also features in Cetina's larger Universal Chess (UC–170–13)

Methinks you've misassigned the ‘aanca’ graphic: in post‐Betza usage ‘aanca’ almost always refers to what we now call a manticore or rhinoceros — hence the four bishops in the icon; there's a corresponding four‐rook icon for the gryphon you seem to have missed.

Only one move apiece comes to mind for the Bat and the Panda: the former is a root‐65 leaper (8:1 or 7:4) (I'll concede it's mostly limited to Savard and Gilman due to its long leap, and the name is used for a few other pieces, but most of those are games far enough outside the usual (things like Halloween Knight Court and Capt. Spalding) that they almost don't count for this; which basically leaves H.G.'s large games, where it's as much a neologism as Raven is for its piece), whilst the latter is a slip‐rook (much better attested, with apparently only Onitama being an exception there; it's one of the pieces that might merit a Piececlopedia entry imo)

Of the PD images only the whales (particularly the second) and maybe the second ibis appeal to me; the others are either too detailed (a problem shared with some of alfaerie's arthropods, f.ex.) or a bit cartoonish to fit in with the rest

And I really like some of the new Cazaux icons; fsr I'm particularly drawn to the Tapir :‌)

I'd want to see them actually on a board, but at first glance going through them in isolation (and at a very inflated size) some of these are rather nice :‌)