Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

May I start the thread with the idea of anti-pieces. An example is the
Anti-Cannon, which in funny notation is mpRcR. It moves without capturing
as a Xiang Qi Cannon captures, and captures as a Xiang Qi Cannon moves
without capturing. Another example is the Anti-Chameleon, which moves
without capturing as it moves without capturing and captures as it
captures. It's a silly piece, isn't it? A more serious version would be
a Chameleon that moves to the squares a piece could move to capture it to
capture that piece. It can capture Pincers by interception, immobilize
Immobilizers by moving as a King, then shooting as a Queen, capture Coordinators by
coordinating with the enemy King, then shooting as Rook, capture Long
Leapers by withdrawal, then as a rifle Queen in the opposite direction, capture Withdrawers as an
adjacent-capture-only Long Leaper, and capture Kings by igui. It provides
a refreshing aggressive contrast to Ultima's defensive nature.

I present two pieces: the Swastika and the Shuriken.

The Swastika is a FfflNfrrNbblNbrrN.

. X . . .
. X . X X
. . W . .
X X . X .
. . . X .

The Shuriken is a WfflNfrrNbblNbrrN.

. X . . .
. . X . X
. X H X .
X . X . .
. . . X .

Both are neatly very, very, Knight-value.

I suppose I should note the obvious: that both these pieces come in a
left-handed and right-handed version.

You seem to define left and right in an unusual manner, though, comparing
the Betza notation with your board drawing.

The Betza notation is a bit cumbersome. It would be better to introduce
lower-case modifiers for handedness, that could be applied to the 8-fold
moves (N, J and L), to split, sa, the Knight moves into left and
right-handed Chiral Knights.

Interesting thought. Lets take the 'Swastika'/'Flywheel' and 'Shuriken', and remove the ferz/wazir move from the piece. Now we have this, which I will call the 'Spinner':

. X . . . 
. . . . X 
. . Z . . 
X . . . . 
. . . X . 

This piece, as it turns out, is 5-way colorbound ('Colorbound' is a Betza-ism that means 'this piece can not reach all of the squares on the board'); each side needs five of these pieces to reach the entire board. Now, since the colorboundness is somewhat unusual, if you add another unrelated colorbound move, such as the move of a ferz (Our 'Flywheel'), the piece is no longer colorbound, but can reach every square on the board. Heck, if you add the pawn move to this piece (The piece can move, but not capture, one square straight ahead), the piece is no longer colorbound.

You could simply use the original Sanskrit - svastik.

It should be enough of a variation in spelling that most
pseudo-intellectuals will not recognized it.

I take umbrage!  I'm a pseudo-intellectual, and that seems obvious to me!

:-)

I was speaking of the politically-correct crowd. But feel free to take
offense. ;-)

But it is a shame that a bunch of evil sons-o-b*****s turned what was once a symbol of 'well-being' into one that is recognized(mostly by Western people) for genocidal insanity.

But I personally would not utilize this particular symbol in anything that I created, except as a mark for the evil side(and even then I would think twice). So maybe there are just some symbols which evoke such a negative reaction that they are better left alone. (I'm starting to sound like H.P.Lovecraft here)

Oops. Thanks for correcting me, Dr. Muller. I sometimes get left and right
confused.

Lynn, I was just kidding of course, but there are other symbols that are
ambiguous also.  I recently moved from New Jersey to Texas.  Here they
have monuments to 'Our Brave Confederate Dead', and I've seen a county
courthouse flying three flags, USA, Texas, and CSA.  I'm not sure what they really meant by that, but I drove directly out of the county.

I just got the idea of this Gryphon!:

x . . . . . x
. x . . . x .
. . x . x . .
. x c G c x .
. . c c c . .
. x . x . x .
. . . . . . .

It's pretty Rook value, but maybe not exactly.

'svastik'-why should it be original sanskrit? !!

Just as a Knight reaches any square a King could move to in 2 turns that a
Queen couldn't move to in 1 turn, this piece reaches any square a Knight
could move to in 2 turns that a Nightrider couldn't move to in one turn:

FDGL[HW]

. . . . X . . . .
. X . X . X . X .
. . . . X . . . .
. X . X . X . X .
X . X . ? . X . X
. X . X . X . X .
. . . . X . . . .
. X . X . X . X .
. . . . X . . . .

Strangely enough, it is stronger than the Knight, which is weaker than the
King. What to call this piece?