Single Comment

Gilman, unlike you, I am not finding this debate interesting. You are splitting hairs over irrelevancies. When I created British Chess, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. But I must thank you for giving me new appreciation of what Ralph Waldo Emerson meant when he said, 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.' Your example of my Pope piece from Fusion Chess is a perfect example of this. When I create pieces for different games, I don't worry about making sure that my naming conventions are consistent from game to game. When I created Fusion Chess and when I created British Chess, I had different things in mind. When I created Fusion Chess, I was not thinking about different religions, and I didn't specifically model the Pope piece after the Catholic Pope. I called it a Pope because it combined the authority of state and church, being a fusion of the King and Bishop. It was only when I later created British Chess that I thought of the difference between Anglicans and Catholics. The principle idea was that this was British Chess. A corollary of this was that the Bishops would be Anglican instead of Catholic. So I thought about how Anglican Bishops would differ from Catholic Bishops. I thought back to a sketch from Monty Python's Meaning of Life, in which John Cleese is talking about the difference between Protestants and Catholics. This led to the thought that being colorbound is like taking a vow of celibacy, and so I enhanced the Bishop in this game to reflect that it wasn't bound by the same vows that other Bishops were. Bear in mind that the name of the piece in this game is Bishop, not Anglican Bishop. I call it an Anglican Bishop only to distinguish it from its counterpart in Chess.