Ratings & Comments

While thinking of the idea of Chimera pieces, and particularly of Derek Nalls' Zig-Zag pieces, I came up with one that could appropriately be called a Dragon. Since that name has already been popular, other possibilities are Winged Serpent or Chinese Dragon, for the idea behind the piece is the long serpentine Dragon depicted in China, not the western type that loves to hoard treasure. Wyvern is another possible name. There are four static variations on this piece, and a rotatable version that could switch between any of these four. There are also eight static subvariations of this piece and a rotatable version that could switch between the eight. The basic idea is to have a linerider along a single orthogonal or diagonal axis, which can move to either side as a Knight. The available Knight moves would be those that do not end up adjacent to the piece's axis. For an orthogonal axis, these would be ones that can be reached with an orthogonal move perpendicular to the axis, followed by an outward diagonal move. For a diagonal axis, these would be ones that can be reached with a diagonal move perpendicular to the axis, followed by an outward orthogonal move. So, whatever the orientation of the piece, it would have up to four possible Knight moves. The axis along which a Rook or Bishop move is possible would represent the serpentine body of the Dragon, and the Knight moves would represent its wings. For simple record keeping, I could call the four static versions the Dash Dragon, the Pipe Dragon, the Slash Dragon, and the Backslash Dragon. These names are based on punctuation marks that correspond with the orientation of the piece, but they may not be poetic enough for an actual game. I'm thinking of two different versions of the rotatable version. In one version, it may rotate to any other orientation after moving, or in place of moving. In a slightly weaker version, it could rotate 45 degrees either way after moving, or rotate to any other orientation in place of moving. Rotation should not be allowed before moving, for that would make the piece equivalent to an Amazon. If we conceive of the Dragon as having a head at one end and a tail at the other, we could have eight static types with only one radial direction of movement. A rotatable version would be able to switch between orientations after moving, or in place of a move. Since allowing this piece to rotate before moving would make it an Amazon, this would not be permitted. Stronger variations, in which the piece has Nightrider moves instead of Knight moves are also possible.

I think "subset" would seem the most natural to me.

After sleeping on it, I woke up feeling that subset would work.

I would also personally place the Silver General and company to be in this group rather than Chimera.

With respect to the pieces in both Shogi and Chess, these are both subsets of the King. However, when I adapted these pieces for Hex Shogi, I conceived of the Gold General as moving like a Wazir or forward as a Ferz and of the Silver General as moving like a Ferz or forward as a Wazir. These are accurate descriptions, which may both be regarded as Chimeras of the Wazir and Ferz. But it is also true that the Hex Shogi versions are still subsets of the Hex Shogi King.

If we're to put these into a Subset category, then this would work best if the Man were put into the Simple Leaper category rather than the Leaper Compound category. Is that something you would be comfortable with?

If we're to put these into a Subset category, then this would work best if the Man were put into the Simple Leaper category rather than the Leaper Compound category. Is that something you would be comfortable with?

Yes, that's where I would put it.

The Man/King is not a simple leaper. That term is reserved for pieces where all moves are rotated or mirrorred versions of each other. So the King is definitely a compound.

Compounds can have subsets to, though. Which then can be compounds of subsets of simple leapers. So I don't think that we can require a piece must be one or the other. Subset merely is an extra qualification that can be applied to simple leapers and compound leapers alike. (Or to sliders, for that matter.)

So there doesn't seem anything wrong with saying Gold is a subset of the King. That is more true than just saying it is a compound, as it is really a compound of subsets. That the King is a compound should be considered common knowledge. King and Queen have special status in this respect, because they are orthocox Chess pieces, and people can be expected to know them. Betza notation expresses their moves as a single capital, K or Q, officially 'shorthand' for WF and RB.

The large Shogi variants have many pieces, and they are virtually all subsets of the Queen. (As oblique moves are virtually non-existent in Shogi.) Some are even subsets of the Rook or the King.

What I dislike about the term 'subset' is that it has a well-defined meaning, which would consider the R4 a subset of the Rook. It seems that we now want to deviate from this meaning, by not allowing it to describe range restrictions, but only complete absence of a move in a certain direction. I think that such a distortion of the meaning of well-known terms is inadvisable.

I guess I am persuaded that a Man is a compound, since a Queen is, but that a Gold General can still be considered a Man/King subset.

I'm not persuaded, however, that an R4 would be a R subset. It depends what we are referring to as the items in the set. I consider it a set of move capabilities, not a set of potential destination squares. And I consider a range-limited slide a different move capability than an unlimited slide. I certainly don't consider a dabbabahrider a subset of a rook.

Yes, I agree. I've updated the modified date so it will appear in this weeks updates. I usually do that when I'm unhideing a page if it hasn't been edited in a while. The page owner can also force it by making some edit.

I'm stupid. I registered when I saw your post yesterday, and today I forgot to connect. Friday 6PM, end of a hard working week, I started to relax and I forgot :=( They sent two mails to ring up, but they went to my spam box. Aaaargh.

Only satisfaction, I had sent the information to some friends, and one friend was able to listen. He told me that I have not missed much.

I was shoveling snow this morning. Got something to eat an hour before start, and fell asleep on the couch from about 12:30 until a little after 14:00, neatly missing it myself. Maybe the 3 hours of sleep last night can take the blame. :)

Thanks for posting. Maybe it'll show up on youtube or some obscure website. But it was about western chess only. Looking at the Silk routes and the various forms of chess found along them gives bits and pieces of a few stories. The eastern chesses are fascinating in their similarities and differences. And the biggest mystery is the disjunction between western chesses and eastern chesses. The eastern chesses are obviously a family, and western chess is just as obviously a closely related but different family. I just want to know when, where, and how the original idea split into 2 related families. And how, of course, Japanese chess arose.

Joe, http://aworldofchess.com

Good grief! I walked right into that, didn't I! Thanks for the information. The short video was informative.

How many games are you playing to get these percentages?

"I realized that the knight is stronger than a bishop." Do you mean that? I had the feeling that on a 10x10 the Bishop is the strongest.

He means the knight in Apothecary Chess, which is augmented, is stronger then the bishop. There are two different Apothecary games. In one, the Knight is augmented by a non-capturing (3,2) zebra move. In the other, it is augmented by non-capturing (2,2) and (3,0) moves.

@Jean-louis Cazaux In apothecary chess Clasic the knight may also move as a zebra but not capture. In apothecary chess Modern the knight may also leap 3 orthogonally or move as an alfil, but not capture. These are too strong enhancements. I am trying to get to something that will keep the knight and bishop equal.

@Greg Strong For the alfil enhancement I used 512 games. For the other two I've stopped around 100. That is beacuse I had though the results to be weird.

I think it is likely that the results are weird because at only 100 games the error margin is high. Testing is time-consuming, so it is tempting to stop a test early based on initial results, but if you do that you do not have an accurate measurement and are responding to noise.

Sorry, I missed that important point. Btw, no "e" in my name :=)

@Greg

I don't think 75% can be explained by random noise, for something that was meant to be around 50%.