Single Comment

We cite Bell's other Infinite Ring at ChessboardMath5 8.January.2009 challenge number (28). Is one dimension already one dim. too many? Why does Odalisque, notwithstanding the risky name, seem like 1-D instead of 3-D? It is imaginatively as if 2-D is omitted altogether, like a hole in the head. Odalisque at sixteen is exactly the same height as Ramayana Buddha's board 16x4 wide, both being high and narrow. The same thread challenges 3.January.2009 to ''(2) Design a CV without a board, where pieces competitively mutate, until one team's pieces exhaust.'' Dispensing with boards means return to Rock-Scissors-Paper, the unannotated wasteland. Plain ChessboardMath 19.February.2008 refounds that as Rock-Fire-Scissors-Paper, because of the need Rook:Rock, Falcon:Fire, Bishop:Scissors, Knight:Paper. You remember rock the clenched fist, fire the thumbs or digit up...paper the flat palm. The new Fire is like let it burn, baby! But the flaw is that Rock-scissors and Fire-paper now become undefined. That's okay because 33% Draws are an improvement on anything. Oh, I forgot: Rock curses fire, which cures scissors, which cuts paper, which covers rock. Lo seriously one dim.wd. is quite an achievement here: