Single Comment

I can see your reasoning, Haru. A possible issue for me is that some of these unorthodox pieces have more names that were given to them over the years than some of the other types in the group. I wanted to use certain names, but Kirin has only one name as far as I know, and thus waffle gets thrown out with the bathwater, if phoenix must therefore be used (which H.G. for one may not mind, but I have a variant idea named Waffle-Spiel and Phoenix-Spiel somehow didn't appeal to me as much as a name, for example). It may also at times be certain name(s) don't appeal to someone, for whatever reason, and why should they be 'forced' to use them, if they are 'paired' by name with a piece that has a given name that that person doesn't mind the sound of, again for whatever reason?

edit: standard chess itself may have similar issues. 'Castle' is a popular nickname for rook (at least among novices), and similarly 'horse' for knight, 'cleric' or 'prelate' for bishop, 'lady' for queen (perhaps) and 'royal pieces' is a nickname sometimes used for king and queen as a pair. You also can have an issue building an opening repertoire, say with Black - you may want to play the Nimzo-Indian (just one choice) vs. 1.d4, but if White plays 3.Nf3 or 3.g3 then you have more than one choice against each of those, and you may dislike that there aren't more options vs 3.Nc3 than the Nimzo-Indian that you like to play. Also, you may like to play 3.g3 Bb4+, but not 3.Nf3 Bb4+, even though 'logic' may suggest one should be played if the other is.