Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2004 07:37 AM UTC:
On the whole I am sympathetic to Michael Howe's view. It is not
necessarily the case that Ralf Hansmann based this variant on, or even
knew about, Glinsky's game; he might easily have devised it
independently. However, the pont is that Glinsky's variant already exists
and this is not an improvement on it and adds little.
Regarding the different piece names, they at least emphasise the fact
that they are not quite the same as FIDE pieces. Indeed I might even have
adopted some of them for my own hex terminology had this page been here
when I began contributing. Toad might be worth making standard for so
distinctive a piece, if it not used for any other. Does anyone know if it
is, or prefer it to my suggestion of Migrant?
There are however problems even with that good points. Some of the names
are used differently elsewhere, Bat and Broom have the same initial with
no obvious rule as to which (no pun intended) alternative letter should be
used for one of them, and the point that the 'Broom' is not a FIDE
Bishop is somewhat neglected by the use of only ytwo of them when three
are needed to cover the board.