Single Comment

I'm not sure what I'd call it

Per Diverse Directions, Narpenter?

Bn Em's quite right, of course; nonsense words are mainly useless, as they give no visuals to base the piece's appearance on.

The objection to nonsense words isn't really mỹ own; after all, (a) pieces with nonsense names are often a bit obscure anyway and (b) several of the more established pieces have nonsense names — not only our alfil and dabbaba but even orthochess pieces (our Rook — unrelated to the bird although the source of some Gilmanese extrapolations — as well as e.g. the Spanish Alfil or (former) Italian Rocco (other modern senses deriving from this one) are all meaningless words outwith Chess) and few seem to mind

Of course these have etymologies (as well, at least in English usage, as synonymous calques) that'll suggest visual representations, but names are not the only possible basis for such: again, the orthodox set often bears precious little resemblance to the standard names, whilst the move is often an equally good suggestor of visuals — see, for example, abstract designs (Bauhaus, f.ex., or H.G.'s Ultima set), or the various extrapolative images in Alfaerie (2‐square leapers with diacritics, Diagonal‐cannon ‘Vao’s, the perfectly evocative non‐animal gryphon and manticore…) and others (the nigh‐ubiquitous knight–slider hybrids)

But, as I said, tastes may (and indeed do) differ ;‌)