Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Equating colourbinding with celibacy does not work for me. Quite apart from
celibacy being rare among camels and elephants, after whom other
colourbound pieces are named, but usual among cardinals, after whom a
non-colourbound piece is named, being non-celibate is not a reliable
indicator of Anglican office.
	Firstly, not only Anglicans have non-celibate bishops. The Orthodox
clergy, which has a rank of bishop, is open to married men. Indeed
marriage is the norm among its members.
	Secondly, some Anglican clergy are celibate - genuinely celibate, not
merely saving themselves for the right woman. This is particularly so in
the wing closest to Catholics in ritual, whose popular description
Anglo-Catholic may be the source of the 'Who is Catholic?' confusion. A
few are even from Anglican monastic orders. Late last century two brothers
in such an order - and in the literal sense of sharing parents! - became
bishops in England.
	Thirdly, and this is the bombshell, Catholic priestly celibacy is not
quite universal. Converts to Catholicism with clergy experience in another
Christian denomination are eligible for ordination even if they are
married. Theoretically they could reach the rank of bishop, although few
start again young enough.
	Incidentally Anglicans in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though indeed
counted as Protestants, are a minority on that side of the divide.
Presbyterians outnumber them considerably. My original error was a failure
to recall the strong Gaelic streak in North America and Australasia. As to
credentials of impartiality, I am not a Christian of any kind.

'Equating colourbinding with celibacy does not work for me. Quite apart
from celibacy being rare among camels and elephants, after whom other
colourbound pieces are named, but usual among cardinals, after whom a
non-colourbound piece is named, being non-celibate is not a reliable
indicator of Anglican office.'

Celibacy is not the point. The key word is 'vow.' Your point about
animals is irrelevant. Different pieces could be colorbound for different
reasons. In the case of Bishops, it is because, within the context of this
game, they have taken vows to stay colorbound.

'Firstly, not only Anglicans have non-celibate bishops.'

Known and irrelevant. The Bishops are Anglican, because the game is
British Chess.

'The Orthodox clergy, which has a rank of bishop, is open to married
men.'

I'll bear that in mind if I ever invent Russian Chess. It just isn't
relevant to British Chess.

'Secondly, some Anglican clergy are celibate - genuinely celibate, not
merely saving themselves for the right woman.'

Bully for them.

'Thirdly, and this is the bombshell, Catholic priestly celibacy is not
quite universal.'

So what? The norm is still vows of celibacy for Catholic bishops and none
for Anglican bishops. Exceptions to the norm are still exceptions. The
analogy behind the Anglican Bishop piece is based on the norm and needn't
take exceptions into consideration.

'Incidentally Anglicans in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though indeed
counted as Protestants, are a minority on that side of the divide.
Presbyterians outnumber them considerably.'

Two points. First, the Anglican church is the official Church of England,
and the English monarch is the head of this church. Second, Presbyterians
don't have bishops; they just have ministers and elders. For these two
reasons, an Anglican Bishop is more appropriate for British Chess than a
Presbyterian Bishop would be.

As an Anglican, I am a Catholic in the same sense that Canadians are
Americans.  
'Roman Catholic' is often shortened to 'Catholic'.  Instead of meeting
at Rome, 
the Anglican bishops meet at the 'Lambeth Conference', for which a
variant in Pritchard is named.

Anglicans tend to be very conservative in our private morals, but broadly
tolerant of others who differ from us, with the Golden Rule as guide.  
Particularly, we are noted for respecting individual decisions
about human-made rules and guidelines.  We are often told, 'The only
rule
about thus-and-so is that no one is allowed to make a rule.'

Perhaps the interest that this thread has provoked has something to 
do with the appeal of chess variants.  So long as you are fair to
the other person, you may play chess any way you wish.

Clearly I know that Presbyterians are bishopless, I named them as an
example of such a church in a previuos comment! Far be it from one who
finds your piece named after a real churchman an unnecessary complication
to suggest adding pieces named after fictitious ones! The point of my end
paragraph, which I did label 'incidental', was to clarify between whom
'that fighting' in Northern Ireland had been. Another incidental point
is that facts about the Orthodox church would not help in a Russian-themed
game as Russians call the standard Bishop by their word for an elephant.
	As to what Anglicans are, they are seen as Protestant by most of
themselves and by most members of other churches, and Protestant values
are what the British-Canadian-Australian sovereign vows (yes, vows!) to
uphold as Supreme Governor. It is also problematic to qualify Catholic for
the Pope’s followers. Calling them Roman is inaccurate as there is now
complete separation between the Vatican, a political entity independent of
all others, and Rome, the capital of an Italy with no established
religion.
	Returning to my main point, and accepting your point about the norm and
the exception, I am still left asking about the Bishop+Knight compound.
Cardinal is, if I have counted rightly, the name used in the most games
for that non-colourbound piece. You yourself have devised a game with a
non-colourbound Pope. Surely the higher up the Catholic hierarchy one goes
the more a vow of celibacy is the norm, as exempt priests with their
general age disadvantage die off.
	You have a standard Rook, and you certainly don’t have different kinds of
Knight to represent the orders of the Bath, Garter, Thistle, &c.! So why
not have a standard Bishop and accept that the same piece can represent
the same title in different denominations?

'It is also problematic to qualify Catholic for the Pope's followers.
Calling them Roman is inaccurate as there is now complete separation
between the Vatican, a political entity independent of all others, and
Rome, the capital of an Italy with no established religion.'

Nevertheless, we call ourselves Roman Catholics. It is inaccurate to call
England 'England' since its inhabitants are no longer exclusively
Angles. It is inaccurate to call French Fries French since the dish
originated in Belgium. Etc., etc., but none of this matters, because
derivation is one thing and meaning is another. I am a Roman Catholic,
thank you very much, and I would prefer to go on describing my religion by
the term that everyone in Christendom already knows.

Charles Gilman wrote on the Grotesque Chess page:

Being British myself, I feel more qualified to what is a grave insult to the British, and it is because I found the name British Chess insulting that I suggested giving the variant of that name a different one distancing it ftrom Britain while reflecting a British oppinion of it!

As far as I can tell, your problem with the name stems from your English (not British) pride and your prejudice against Scotland, as your main complaint has been that the Unicorn (which represents Scotland) is more powerful than the Lion (which represents England). This is not a matter of insulting the British, and although you come from Britain, you speak only for your own personal prejudices and not for your whole nation.

Firstly, sorry for 'oppinion' (sic). That was a typo on my part.
	Secondly, I have NEVER mentioned the Lion in my comments on this variant,
so your accusation of anti-Scottish prejudice is unfounded abuse, and it
happens to be untrue. Changing their relative powers would not help.
	Thirdly, have you had any positive British response to this variant? It
may be a perfectly playable game, but its theme does not work well enough
to warrant the name British Chess. In every historic real British variant
that I can think of, Bishop means what it means in FIDE Chess. There must
be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and have the
advantage of being offensive. Here are a few that I can think of; other
regular contributors might like to suggest others.
	American Revolutionary Chess - highlights origin in nation founded in
move away from being British, but has disadvantage of no connection with
French Revolutionary Chess.
	Botched Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding,
reflects at least one British opinion of it, ties in with my coinage
'Botched Bishop' for a Bishop relying on an exclusively non-capturing
move for unbinding.
	Brutish Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding,
only one letter different for recognition, and the three heraldic-based
pieces could be considered 'brutish'.
	Hollywood Chess - after the world's most famous faux-Britain factory.
	Supporter Chess - describes the heraldic rôle common to the three exotic
pieces, and the only one in which the Lion is specifically English.
	Unbritish Chess - accurately describes both the game's origin and its
failure to 'pass' as British.

Charles Gilman wrote:

I have NEVER mentioned the Lion in my comments on this variant, so your accusation of anti-Scottish prejudice is unfounded abuse, and it happens to be untrue. Changing their relative powers would not help.

Then I apologize for that much. My memories must have gotten messed up.

have you had any positive British response to this variant?

Aside from harrassment from you, I'm not aware of any British response.

It may be a perfectly playable game, but its theme does not work well enough to warrant the name British Chess.

I'm glad you think well enough of the game. But the theme of the game is Britain. You're not going to find a more British theme than that. The name was never an afterthought to the game. The theme came first, and the game grew out of the theme.

In every historic real British variant that I can think of, Bishop means what it means in FIDE Chess.

So what? It is not a historic variant. It is not a regional variant. It is a thematic variant.

There must be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and have the advantage of being offensive.

I have only one other name for it that would suit it well, and that name is Elizabethan Chess. Your notion that being offensive would be an advantage for the name is completely puzzling.

American Revolutionary Chess - highlights origin in nation founded in move away from being British, but has disadvantage of no connection with French Revolutionary Chess.

I don't follow that last part. Why would a connection with the French Revolution, with which the game has no connection at all, be an advantage for the name?

Botched Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding, reflects at least one British opinion of it, ties in with my coinage 'Botched Bishop' for a Bishop relying on an exclusively non-capturing move for unbinding.

That's just abuse on your part.

Brutish Chess - alphabetically close to original for ease of finding, only one letter different for recognition, and the three heraldic-based pieces could be considered 'brutish'.

How on earth could that be considered brutish? You are just making no good sense at all.

Hollywood Chess - after the world's most famous faux-Britain factory.

The game has nothing to do with Hollywood.

Supporter Chess - describes the heraldic role common to the three exotic pieces, and the only one in which the Lion is specifically English.

Is supporter a technical term in heraldry? I'm not familiar with the meaning of the word you seem to be using.

Unbritish Chess - accurately describes both the game's origin and its failure to 'pass' as British.

Not quite. By descent, I am part English, Scottish, and Irish. Where I live was once a British colony, and people here still speak the same language as people in Britain do. So I am not unbritish. Besides that, I am a big fan of Dr. Who, Monty Python, British comedy, British rock groups (including U.K.), British operatic singers, and British literature from Shakespeare to Emily Bronte. Culturally speaking, I am much more British than I am French, Dutch, or American Indian -- even though those are also part of my ancestry. Culturally speaking, I am even more British than I am Canadian, and Canada is just a short drive from where I live. So don't tell me I am not British.

There is more to being British than living in Britain or being a citizen of the U.K., and just because you live in Britain and were born there, it doesn't make you an authority on all things British. Your opinion of the game's name is the opinion of one very opinionated man who seems to have an obsession about naming things. You do not speak for anyone but yourself, and you do not speak with any degree of authority. I find your opinions on names, not only for this game, but also for piece names, most unwelcome. I normally just ignore your piece name articles, which I feel have no proper place on this website, but when you continue hounding me like Javert to Jean Valjean, I am going to speak my mind about you.

I like the way this game addresses the problem of the too-powerful royal
piece (which can make it hard to win the game) by the rule that the queen
cannot slide through check. That seems original and yet chesslike, and
sounds likely to do the trick. The explanation on this page was a little
hard for me to decipher, however: I'd suggest rephrasing somehow to
remove the reference to queens capturing other queens. Is 'cover' as you
use it here a standard chess term? I hadn't run across it yet.

I wish the board had a fourth color, so that each dragon would be
restricted to squares of one color. 

Shouldn't there be a piece for Ireland? A Harp, perhaps? No idea what it
would do, though.

'There must be dozens of possible names that would suit it better and
have the advantage of being offensive.' Surely Charles simply forgot to
type the word 'not' in this sentence.

'the three heraldic-based pieces could be considered 'brutish'.' I
imagine Charles G's use of 'brutish' harks back to the use of 'brute'
to mean 'beast,' which is comprehensible enough. The idea that a CV
inventor's choice of a name should be second-guessed at length is
certainly odd, though.

That ladt comment came out wrong. Please ignore it. That's what happens
when I feel in a hurry to stick up for mycompatrioots. Here is the
corercted version:

Firstly, yes I did omit the word not. That needs pointing out quickly. The
sentence should read 'There must be dozens of possible names that would
suit it better and have the advantage of not being offensive.' What you
call harassment, I call helping you fulfil you professed wish to not
insult the British. If you do not like any of my suggestions, then ask for
help elsewhere. This is an immediate reaction, and I will submit a more
thought-out comment once I have written it offline.

I am not understanding these 2 sentences:
'The queen may not move into or through check - except to capture the
enemy queen. This is like the king in chess, which may never move into
check except to capture the enemy king...'
How can a royal piece capture its' opposite number without first putting
both itself and the opponent's royal piece in check, which I always
thought was illegal? I'd love to at least push the pieces around for this
game, (especially since it's destined, apparently, to be in the 2nd
tournament) but until I understand the above 2 sentences, I can't.
Someone please explain.

The ability to move through check to capture the enemy Queen is the power
that keeps Queens from being able to check each other. On an otherwise
empty board, suppose that White has a Queen at e1 and a Rook at b1, while
Black has a Queen at a9. If Queens did not have the ability to move
through check to capture an enemy Queen, then White could check the Black
Queen by moving the White Queen to e9. Since the Rook would impair the
Black Queen's ability to move over b9, the White Queen could freely pass
over it to a9. So the White Queen could check the Black Queen without
being in check from it. But as the rules of British Chess stand, the move
of 'Q e1-e9' would put both Queens in mutual check and be illegal. It
would be mutual check because of the Queen's ability to pass over checked
squares on a move to capture the enemy Queen. Such a move would never
actually happen, because the preconditions for it are illegal, and those
preconditions are made illegal by the Queen's power to otherwise make
such a move.

In Chess, pieces have the power to capture the enemy King, and the only
reason they don't is that it is illegal for a player to keep his King in
a position it could be captured from, and when this can't be done, the
game ends before the capture can be made. The same is true for capturing
Queens in British Chess. Queens have the power to capture each other, but
there will never come a time in the game when one can use that power to
capture the other. This power affects the game only through the
restrictions it puts on the movement of Queens. The restrictions that
follows from this power is that Queens may never face each other across
any empty orthogonal or diagonal line of movement, and restrictions on a
Queen's movement never restrict its power to restrict which spaces the
opposing Queen may pass over. So, in the example I gave, it would be
illegal for the White Queen to move from e1 to e10, because that move
would pass over e9, which is covered by the Black Queen.