Single Comment

[Edit Bracketed within 2 days]Who would want to 'use it in all sorts of geometries'? What an ethos! It is like sifting all the Sahara Desert sand in order to find a handful of lions. Firstly, there are already 91.5 Trillion Falcon Chess variates: see article of that name. There could be a trillion Rococos and a trillion Quintessentials, Maximas, or Eight Stones. Where is the discrimination? Still, allowing room for experimenting, we deliberately excluded 8x8 and under from the Falcon invention; so develop 8x8 Bifocal(2004) and 7x7 Horus(2004). Would it be worthwhile presently for variety, to work up some of Gilman '155 games', and others also, into either Problem Themes, or Mates in Two or Three or Four, or Opening Theory, or Game Scores(even annotated), or Poetry, or developing further the Fiction in some of already-established Themes? Is there one particular, out of Gilman 'inventions' (which is to say, initial positions), or others' worth presenting to contemporary Chess masters or perhaps local clubs for scrutiny? Or, are they all 'art work'(Lavieri's term) not even to be played? It appears what several 'prolific' designers are mostly doing over and over is setting up one piece-mix array after another, and always it was hard to be original there. That is why David Pritchard himself says in Introduction to 1994 ECV about CVs that 'most of them should be consigned to oblivion'--stated before proliferation. So, Gilman's 1(AltOrth) for 155 is only a few times below average, persistence pays. [Meaning still lots of 'Excellents' in CVPage, say, 1 in 30 of 3000 games throughout equals 100 Rococo-level 'Excellents'] Try one of our recent immobilized Problem Themes for a change, then there is excuse at any rate not to play.