Charles Gilman wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2007 05:36 AM UTC:
George Duke misses my point. Switching has nothing to do with reaching the entire board. Consider the following pieces on a square board:
The Rook is neither bound nor switching, but can reach any square in an odd or even number of moves. Likewise the Falcon, as stated above in contrast to its analogue here.
The Camel is both, as it is bound to a single Bishop binding, but that binding comprises two Dabbaba bindings of which the Camel always moves from one to the other. Likewise the Ferz.
The Halfknight (Heavenly Horse) switches between the Bishop bindings but is bound to alternate ranks, a binding which is also a pair of Dabbaba bindings.
George Duke misses my point. Switching has nothing to do with reaching the entire board. Consider the following pieces on a square board:
The Rook is neither bound nor switching, but can reach any square in an odd or even number of moves. Likewise the Falcon, as stated above in contrast to its analogue here.
The Camel is both, as it is bound to a single Bishop binding, but that binding comprises two Dabbaba bindings of which the Camel always moves from one to the other. Likewise the Ferz.
The Halfknight (Heavenly Horse) switches between the Bishop bindings but is bound to alternate ranks, a binding which is also a pair of Dabbaba bindings.