Single Comment

I don't think we should over-emphasize the importance of what we do here. Designers of chess variants will call the pieces as they see fit, and it is very questionable whether this can be influenced by how we name this Piececlopedia page. As yet I don't see any reason not to stick to the name Acromantula in Team-Mate Chess. (And I don't understand this bias versus modern mythical monsters versus those from antiquety.)

We cannot undo the past, niether the 13th century, nor the 20th. So we cannot escape the fact that Betza used the name Aanca for W-then-B, and that a lot of discussion that has taken place here or elsewhere have used this name. As there doesn't seem to be a method yet to access Piececlopedia pages by move description, posting the description of this piece under a name that so far no one has used will only lead to no one ever reading the page. As an attempt for changing the name, that would be kind of a bust. Whatever idea we want to promote here, we'd better make sure that someone would actually read it.

So I think the best we could do is make sure the page is accessible in the index under the name Aanca, and explain in detail on the page that the name historically referred to another piece, which could cause confusion, and for those who want to respect history could be a reason to avoid that name for the W-then-B. And on the Griffon page mention that historically that piece was called Aanca, but that this name now sometimes is usurped to indicate another piece (and refer to the W-then-B page). That maximizes the information that we will be able to disseminate, an people can then make their own decisions on what to do, given this context.