Single Comment

Here Aronson rejects lameness. Aronson left. The string of leavings: Betza, Duniho, Aronson, Good, (the other Good first to leave back around 2000). Not to mention mentor David Pritchard's untimely death from a fall. [The last sentence is Anapodoton, omitting a clause. Test question: Which of the two also is last sentence before brackets, Praeteritio or Aporia?] Pritchard was consulting Fergus Duniho for add-ins to second edition of 'ECV', hence many 'Dunihos' there. Anyway, Aronson had two achievements, Rococo and Complete Permutation Chess. CPC perfectly uses F-B-N-R, the four fundamentals. Here Aronson adds couple of good definitions to the Falcon-movement inventory. Especially see the first paragraph under ''The Moves of the Pieces.'' Under ''Notes & Comments'' Aronson cannot resist the stab, or stoop, to extend ''lame'' from accepted line-piece to oblique directions. What Aronson tries below in his 3rd definition would be better in entire essay. ''Falcon is somewhat weaker than actual Bison since it can be blocked, but it is much stronger than a lame Bison would be. One result of
the Falcon's multiple movement paths is that, UNLIKE WITH LAME PIECES, if Black's Falcon attacks White's Falcon, White's Falcon also attacks Black's Falcon.'' [Case added]  At any rate, Aronson succeeds in clearly contrasting some inventive Bison ''lame'' (He means one-path, but which one of up to dozen possible pathways?) and well-established natural three-path Falcon. Lameness and ''multi-path-ness'' are different concepts -- neither opposites nor synonyms. Keep them apart, and please keep ''lame,'' if we use it at all, strictly for line pieces, as intended. Words instead that should and do figure in definitions of oblique multi-path
movers like Falcon, Scorpion and Dragon include: Darter (see Jeliss), Multi-path, Two- Three- Four-path, angled-45-degree, angled-90-degree, diagonal, orthogonal.