Single Comment

Your claim that 2D hexagonal boards have triagonals and no diagonals is
completely mistaken. Triagonal movement is 3D in nature and does not exist
on a 2D board. Furthermore, triagonal seems to be a mislogism based on an
inaccurate etymology of diagonal. The 'di' in diagonal does not mean
two. Rather, it is just the first two letters of 'dia', a Greek root
meaning through. So, diagonal literally means 'through angles,' or as
it's given in the dictionary 'from angle to angle.' On an appropriately
colored hexagonal board, you can see diagonally connected spaces in the
same color. A diagonal line of spaces on a hexagonal board is one you can
draw through the angles of the hexagons. As for the mislogism of
triagonal, it should be abandoned in favor of the more accurate term '3D
diagonal.'

As for your article as a whole, I take it with a grain of salt. You have
not provided any compelling reasons for any of your suggestions. And some
of your suggestions are laughable. I shall never call the Rook+Ferz
combination a CHATELAINE, a word that is pure jabberwocky to me. Besides
this, your article is very terse and hard to follow, and it takes a stuffy
and officious tone on matters that are not up to you to make rulings on.
You can name pieces in your own games whatever you want, and you may try
to open discussions on what names should be standard for various pieces,
but your article does neither. It is mainly just a list of your
preferences, given without adequate defense or explanation, in a manner
that tries to lay down the law instead of opening discussion on the issue.