Sam Trenholme wrote on Wed, Oct 18, 2006 09:02 PM UTC:
I'm not sure a Knight can be accurate described as a piece that moves like a ferz than a wazir (or a ferz than wazir). I like rigourous descriptions that precisely describe a piece (can you tell I'm a computer programmer). Here would be my description of a knight:
Leap:
N then (NW or NE)
E then (NE or SE)
S then (SW or SE)
W then (NW or SW)
That said, I really like the ideas presented here. I'm a little worried about powerful short range pieces making attack too difficult and defense too easy (My perpetual worry about a game being too drawish).
An interesting piece is the 'wazir then wazir', which moves as follows:
Leap:
(N, S, E, or W) then (N, S, E, or W)
In other words, from e5 it can move to c5, d4, d6, e3, e5 (null move), e7, f4, f6, or g5. This critter is colorbound, of course.
I have some other ideas in mind, such as defining riders and 'bulldozers', which I will detail in a later comment.
- N then (NW or NE)
- E then (NE or SE)
- S then (SW or SE)
- W then (NW or SW)
That said, I really like the ideas presented here. I'm a little worried about powerful short range pieces making attack too difficult and defense too easy (My perpetual worry about a game being too drawish).An interesting piece is the 'wazir then wazir', which moves as follows:
Leap:
- (N, S, E, or W) then (N, S, E, or W)
In other words, from e5 it can move to c5, d4, d6, e3, e5 (null move), e7, f4, f6, or g5. This critter is colorbound, of course.I have some other ideas in mind, such as defining riders and 'bulldozers', which I will detail in a later comment.
- Sam