Single Comment

I slightly disagree with Larry Smith's comment which is: Quote: 'An
un-moved quantum would merely be a potential and not an actual.  It
would need to be moved to be realized.  In other words, it must be
'observed' to be that particular piece, not just surmised.'-End Quote.
I look at it this way, for example: If a remaining Bario can only be a
Rook.  Then it is a Rook.  When it moves, it will move as a Rook.  But,
for the sake of Bario one could make the rule read that 'The last Bario
must be moved and transformed into the intended piece, even if that piece
is already known.'  That would be a clear rule.  But they way the rules
are currently written, pieces need only to have their identity correctly
'defined.'  Thus, by simple logic we can correctly define a Bario when 2
exist, and 1 moves.  Is it any different than dropping a coin on a table
and being asked to define the 'face-up' and the 'face-down'?  If I see
Heads face up, I can define Tails as face down (also, I can point out this
is no trick coin.  In Bario we are using a standard chess set, so we know
the possibilities).  With the coin toss, as with 2 remaining Barios, there
is no need for me to see the final hidden item.  Labeling that hidden item
as as a 'quantum with potential' does not alter the simple reality of
the situation.

On a second note, Larry asks, 'If all quantum are neutral, would a player
be allowed to capture them?'  He then states, 'I would opt for this.'  I
agree with Larry 100% here. But in using his arguement from above, should
one really be allowed to capture a mere 'quantum potential?'