[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
I can completely understand the source of this topic. I know that there has been several requests that the Archer in Field Chess be re-named because it doesn't have the 'shoot'. I am one of the guilty. The naming of playing pieces is the privilege of the developer. Games with themes have often given names to pieces which might otherwise have previous designations. And new pieces are sometimes given the title of pieces which are barely similar. The standardization of piece names is an ardent task. There are a lot of published games that would need reconciliation, some of which the authors are no longer available for such. In the compilation of a list of piece descriptions, there might be several different forms. This means that the researcher will just have to accept the labor. There will develop, over time, a common use of certain piece names. And these can be tagged as such in the name description. And whether a particular description of a piece is mentioned will be totally dependent on the criteria of the list. What ever this evaluation, it should be fairly applied.
After speaking w/my attorney, it looks as though I spoke too soon about my frivilous request. Please except my appologies gentlemen, I understand your displeased disposition. What i didn't understand was my authority on my patent. Fergus Duniho, Peter Aronson, Michael Nelson, Michael Howe, Jim Aikin, and anyone else who might have read my hasty message. Please except my humble appology, as i said before my intent wasn't to offend. I ask that you gentlemen do not hold this against me in future topics of chess. Sincerely Pete Leyva
3 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.