Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Thank you, Charles, for providing this overview and glossary. It gives me a point of reference to look at your work with maybe some understanding. I've got a couple of questions, one general, and one specific. 

The general question concerns how to look up pieces. Several of us here have designed pieces, and might like to know how and where they fit into your scheme. I recognize some of Mats' pieces, I see George's Falcon family is there, and I even see Gavin Smith's planar pieces from Prince there. I think Larry Smith [no relation] played with planar pieces against Gavin, but Larry also did a rather thorough and extensive classification of Jetan pieces. It was Larry's monograph that made me realize how lucky I was not to have re-invented ERB's [and Larry's] pieces with some of my designs. So could I look up ERB's pieces, or my own pieces like the shaman or the flexible knight, in some systematic way? 

The second question is about planar pieces. Gavin and Larry seemed to agree [and I hope one or both will comment if I make a mistake] that planar pieces were 2D pieces that had to take every possible shortest path from their starting location to their ending location when they moved, and any single piece on a single one of those multiple locations making up all the shortest pathways from start to finish would block the move. I believe you also seem to accept their definition. I'd like to argue again [as I did with Larry, then], that this is far too restrictive a definition. 

Let's take a simple example of a planar rook and its target, an enemy planar bishop, 5 squares away diagonally, on the same 2D level/board section/whatever. Anyway, the planar rook can take the bishop if all 23 of the squares between the B and the R that occupy the 5x5 2D square [determined by using the positions of the B&R as opposite corners of the square] are empty, according to the rules. This is the weakest form of planar piece. [It's equivalent to damming a river by throwing a rock in it. To marginally mitigate this, there are 2 2D planes, and only 1 needs to be clear.] 

The strongest form of planar piece would be able to take if only one of all the shortest paths was open. An average planar piece might see the cut-off at half the paths available. A weakest cubic rook, B&R at opposite corners of a 5x5x5 cube, would require 123 empty cubes to capture the bishop. The bishop, being colorbound, would only need roughly half as many locations clear to effect a capture in general [and in the example given, only 3 empty cubes], thus more than overcoming its colorboundness to be worth more than the rook, no?

Those planar pieces which are not restricted by occupancy of their attack plane might actually be classified as 'hook-movers'.

The restriction of planar pieces might seem a little draconian, but only during the early portion of the game. As the field clears, these pieces begin to rise exponentially in threat.

A further restriction was developed because of the dynamics of the diagonal(and triagonal) planar piece. This was that all the cells within the planar move must exist on the field. Though developers and players are not strictly bond by this rule.

For a nice(or so I think) 2D game which demonstrates planar moves, try LiQi. It utilizes the same equipment as the Mad Queen(but it does not restrict the diagonal planar piece). There's also a Zillions implementation.

Thank you, Charles. I was intending to discuss the definition, with an interest in extending it a bit. I do see a possible need for expanded definitions [and a way to look up all pieces would be nice, even if all but impossible.] Planar pieces as used are just one step into area effect pieces - hook movers being another similar but different example, and the 2-step bent knightriders, especially [Jeremy's] with a ferz or wazir component, a third, shortrange version. Personally, I see a great need for some sort of organization of/within CVs. I'm happy there are people [crazy enough] um, willing to tackle it.   

I'd think planar pieces might be classified by how easy it is to block them, as a start. As pieces, they get more powerful the closer they are to their intended victim, an unusual phenomenon in chess, I suspect. This might be another sort of defining characteristic. I'd think they would be interesting pieces on very large boards, or greater than 2D boards. Which brings up the question of whether 'Planar' will be the stand-in [or the 'type specimen'] for planar, cubic, quatric, quintic... pieces. I'd say yes, at least for now. 

The more powerful versions of a planar piece would require more powerful versions of other pieces, or something such as a traffic cop piece, that slowed everything down, a la Roberto Lavieri's piece George mentioned recently, a somewhat less-than-Immobilizer. Or possibly some sort of reactive piece - Jeremy's Actualized Potential Pieces come to mind as a start for a piece that fires to a preset point or distance during the other player's turn, for example. Certainly, that piece would guard against the current planar pieces from 'behind' [but not 'directly' behind] the target piece. A 'battery' of these pieces might break up a major offensive in a larger [multimove, maybe] game. 

I guess the point of the previous paragraph is that once you've gotten the pieces to the board and used a bit, someone else will escalate. [Blue-sky fantasy desire: see all pieces cataloged in such a way that a designer who knew the system could look up newly-designed pieces to see if they are actually new, and what pieces are similar.] I'd think you'd want your system to be able to accomodate the pieces that will be showing up in the near future.

Dear Mr. Gilman:

I've been looking in your articles for alternative names for the commuter, the fourleaper, and their compound, as for the tripper, the threeleaper and their compound. Where can I find?

Besides that I don't know if you are familiar with the sniper named fusilier (moves Wazir, captures Ferz), do you have an article on snipers? Do you have a name for the 'anti-fusilier' and others?

I would like to talk to you about the concept of base movers and templates (I use the term base mover to avoid confusion with the atoms). If you think it is ok, tell me or send me a mail.

Thanks.

>> the sniper named fusilier (moves Wazir, captures Ferz)

Cool!

Moves like an Ajax Ferz...

Fusilier! Like the sound of that.

Ome-step divergent pieces are in MAB 02. Fusilier is, I believe, an alternative name for the Steward, the piece that moves without capturing as a Wazir and captures as a Ferz. The piece that moves with or without capturing as a Wazir and captures as a Ferz is the Xaja Wazir. The Ajax Ferz moves without capturing as a Wazir and with or without capturing as a Ferz. The piece that moves without capturing as a Ferz and captures as a Wazir I term the Contrasteward, but I once saw it termed the Guardian somewhere since, probably only a problematist usage so far. It would be interesting to know if anyone thinks it worth substituting Guardian for Contrasteward and devising similar replacements for Contrawaiter and Contrabutler.

Out of curiosity, does anyone think that I'm flogging a dead horse by terming the MAB 12 Sextoranker+Ninjafiler compound Mule? This is something of a dead-end name for a Stockable piece (i.e. one like the Brook, Fwezir, et cetera), as I am noticing as I introduce ever more such pieces. Were it called the Nsexton as copying the logic for radial pieces would dictate I could then extrapolate to Elfranker+Underfiler=Uelf, Fenceranker+Lectufiler=Lfencer, Brook+Nsexton=Nsenvasser, Unicorn+Nsexton=Nsefila, Brook+Uelf=Nleaseholder, Unicorn+Uelf=Nleprechaun, et cetera. The Stock forms of these, which MAB 15 would cover, are Stock analogues to the Camel, Zebra, Marshal, Cardinal, Canvasser, and Caliph. I could also name analogues for the Gnu/Gazelle/Bison if to Sexton+Elf=Morgai and Ninja+Lecturer=Coallure I added names for Ninja+Underscore, Sexton+Fencer, Elf+Fencer, and Underscore+Lecturer.

I recently devised a chain of renamings for simple oblique leapers in MAB 03, MAB 05, and MZB 14 that appear never to have been used. The idea seemed so satisfactory that I implemented it without first highlighting that I was planning to, and close on the heels of a series of renamings for compound oblique leapers. Having done it I realise that I have blurred the two changes, so here is a clarification for those who did not notice the second one:
	It started when I thought of the MUSKRAT and judged this a better name than Myomorph, which in biology includes most of the rodents after which I had named other pieces.
	However, replacing Myomorph with Muskrat would also require a replacement for Mystic and renaming the Mustang and Muddler. This was not so great a problem, as I was never entirely happy with Mustang anyway. A marsupial name would be much better, to go with the Numbat and Wombat sharing its SOLL of 57. I looked through an online list of marsupials again and spotted the Ringaui.
	Previously I'd always overlooked Ringaui as it in turn clashed with Irregular. However, once I took a look at a full list of rectlinear oblique leapers I judged it odd that I had given the names of real (if part-time) warriors like the Auxiliary and Irregular to longer-SOLL pieces than those that I had named Bystander and Onlooker. So it occurred to me that a replacement for Irregular could lead to a more extensive chain of renamings addressing these difficulties.
	First for the 11:6 leaper I decided to use the previously unused S and Y and replace Irregular with SCRYER, someone whose efforts are thought fruitless in modern society. I have never had a name for the FO piece.
	That freed R and I up, so for the pure-hex piece with SOLL 53 I went ahead with replacing Mustang with RINGAUI. For the FO piece I replaced Escape with GNAWER, following the practice for FO versions of other small-animal pieces. Also freed up was IRREGULAR itself, with which I then replaced Muddler for the 8:7:1 leaper. Note that this switched Irregular to the name of an even- instead of odd-SOLL piece, so that its compounds with radial pieces have different names from those of the old Irregular. The SOLL of 114 is less than the Bystander's 117 and Onlooker's 122. As Mess did not fit this especially well I made the FO Irregular the INSURGENT.
	That freed M and U up, so for the 8:2:1 leaper from I went ahead with replacing Myomorph with MUSKRAT. For the FO piece I replaced Mourner with SUMMONER. Also freed up were MUDDLER and MESS, with which I then replaced Mystic and Initiate for the 8:7:5 leaper and its FO version.
	That freed up MYSTIC, someone else whose efforts are thought fruitless in modern society, with which I then replaced Auxiliary for the 11:4 leaper. Note that this switched Mystic to the name of an odd- instead of even-SOLL piece, so that its compounds with radial pieces have different names from those of the old Mystic. I have never had a name for the FO piece.
	That freed up AUXILIARY, with which I then replaced the unsatisfactory Stretcher for the 7:6:4 leaper. Its SOLL, 101, is less than the new Irregular's 114. As Splint no longer suited the FO piece I made the FO Auxiliary the ANCILLARY.

I have decided to clear out MAB 06 and MAB 17 pieces combining three or more short-range components, except where they are two each on two kinds of radial. I have also decided to rename half the FO forms of the latter group to be more consistent in echoing the symmetric pieces' names, and hopefully be potentially less contentious. I will do it at the weekend, when I have a bit more time online.
	The next pieces that I am looking to remove as not extrapolating pre-existing pieces to new geometries are the -author and -dyer pieces of MAB 08, so if anyone has any reservations about their removal please voice them here.

This would not affect pieces alternating directions of the same simple piece. Firstly the Rose is well established and its name highly suits a Chess piece, and I have in turn embedded my Finch and Rabbi in Jewish-themed variants. Secondly they are genuinely more distinct from their nearest Crooked counterparts - at least in the case of the square-board Curved riders, which also alternate different angles.