🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sun, Feb 27, 2005 02:15 AM UTC:
I just finished reading The Chessmen of Mars today, and I'm pleased that this page gives the interpretation of the rules that best fits the text.
I have noticed one contradiction between the second chapter and appendix. The second chapter says that Warriors move 'straight in any direction, or diagonally, two spaces', whereas the appendix says the Warrior moves '2 spaces straight in any direction or combination.' In this case, I assume that Burroughs was being more careful in the appendix, which was offered for readers who wanted to play the game, and that the appendix rule is the accurate one. I think he really meant 'or any combination' where he wrote 'or diagonally,' since he included this part in other piece descriptions, omitted it for the Warrior, the phrase is in an awkward place, and he could have described it more similarly to the Chief's move if it really moved both straight and diagonally. Besides this, the appendix description makes the Warrior to the Padwar as the Rook is to the Bishop, or almost as the (non-leaping) Dwar is to the (leaping) Flier, and this makes more sense.
As for Thoats, the appendix and second chapter do not contradict, but the appendix accidently left out the leaping ability of the Thoat move, and the second chapter fills us in on this information.
As for the interpretation given here of the Panthan move, I think it makes sense to interpret backward as any backward direction, given that he only said 'but not backward' when he could have said 'but not straight backward.' So I agree with Jean-Louis Cazaux's interpretation but for a different reason than he gives, though his reason is a good one too.
I just finished reading The Chessmen of Mars today, and I'm pleased that this page gives the interpretation of the rules that best fits the text.
I have noticed one contradiction between the second chapter and appendix. The second chapter says that Warriors move 'straight in any direction, or diagonally, two spaces', whereas the appendix says the Warrior moves '2 spaces straight in any direction or combination.' In this case, I assume that Burroughs was being more careful in the appendix, which was offered for readers who wanted to play the game, and that the appendix rule is the accurate one. I think he really meant 'or any combination' where he wrote 'or diagonally,' since he included this part in other piece descriptions, omitted it for the Warrior, the phrase is in an awkward place, and he could have described it more similarly to the Chief's move if it really moved both straight and diagonally. Besides this, the appendix description makes the Warrior to the Padwar as the Rook is to the Bishop, or almost as the (non-leaping) Dwar is to the (leaping) Flier, and this makes more sense.
As for Thoats, the appendix and second chapter do not contradict, but the appendix accidently left out the leaping ability of the Thoat move, and the second chapter fills us in on this information.
As for the interpretation given here of the Panthan move, I think it makes sense to interpret backward as any backward direction, given that he only said 'but not backward' when he could have said 'but not straight backward.' So I agree with Jean-Louis Cazaux's interpretation but for a different reason than he gives, though his reason is a good one too.