Well, I am not sure whether a piece that is used in only a single variant (even if that is a historically important one) deserves to have its own Piececlopedia page. The main purpose of such paces is to give an overview of the piece history and use, inventor, names under which it is known. So that all articles on variants that use it can refer to that, and don't have to repeat it everywhere. But if it is used in only one variant, everything there is to be said about it would already be in the variant article.
E.g. do we have a Piececlopedia piece for the Tamerlane Picket?
There are entire classes of pieces we do not have Piececlopedia pieces for. E.g. ski sliders, skip sliders, slip sliders...
OTOH, since the Griffon is the archetypal bent slider, I do think it makes some sense to discus slight variations on it. As long as none of these have their own page. I am not sure whether all lame versions of the familiar leapers would need a separate page, and would even be comfortable with the idea that it should be understood that any distant leap can also exist in a lame version.
In the case of the Griffon I don't see any reason to single out the Tamerlane Giraffe as only variation; in fact it seems one of the less important ones to me.
If there were a hippopotamus piece, would you also expect it to move like a knight? He chose the name of hippogriff because of this piece's similarity to the griffon, as these two mythical beasts are similar.
A hippopotamos is not a (mythical, hypothetical or real) hybrid or chimera of a horse and something else. So that makes it a false analogy. It is a real, well known animal that lives in water, and mentioning it would not make people think of a horse.
There are so many pieces similar to a Griffon in the sense they have a sub-set of the moves, and I think some of those would be more deservant for this name.
Well, I am not sure whether a piece that is used in only a single variant (even if that is a historically important one) deserves to have its own Piececlopedia page. The main purpose of such paces is to give an overview of the piece history and use, inventor, names under which it is known. So that all articles on variants that use it can refer to that, and don't have to repeat it everywhere. But if it is used in only one variant, everything there is to be said about it would already be in the variant article.
E.g. do we have a Piececlopedia piece for the Tamerlane Picket?
There are entire classes of pieces we do not have Piececlopedia pieces for. E.g. ski sliders, skip sliders, slip sliders...
OTOH, since the Griffon is the archetypal bent slider, I do think it makes some sense to discus slight variations on it. As long as none of these have their own page. I am not sure whether all lame versions of the familiar leapers would need a separate page, and would even be comfortable with the idea that it should be understood that any distant leap can also exist in a lame version.
In the case of the Griffon I don't see any reason to single out the Tamerlane Giraffe as only variation; in fact it seems one of the less important ones to me.
A hippopotamos is not a (mythical, hypothetical or real) hybrid or chimera of a horse and something else. So that makes it a false analogy. It is a real, well known animal that lives in water, and mentioning it would not make people think of a horse.
There are so many pieces similar to a Griffon in the sense they have a sub-set of the moves, and I think some of those would be more deservant for this name.