Comments by Leon Carey
Thank you Mr. Pacey. My own personal system for classifying pieces works in this way: if you had only that piece (with no promoting) and a king, would you be able to force checkmate against a lone king, and if you could then it is a major piece, if not it would be a minor piece. Under this classification, a man is a major piece, whilst the nightrider is a minor piece. (On the subject of nightriders I think that a nightrider/rose compound and a piece I call the 'fusilier' (which is to the nightrider as the cannon is to thee rook) are interesting ideas.
Sorry, I have just noticed that my idea on minor/major distinction is the same as yours, Mr. Pacey.
I actually disagree with my previous idea that on the ability for forcing checkmates. Whilst it is useful for looking at pieces that are the compounds of regular chess pieces, such as the princess, empress, amazon and queen as well as basic (1,1) or (1,0) riders, other, more 'exotic' pieces need a different classification system. The mann and the gold general are pieces I would call minor, despite their ability to force checkmate in a piece + k v. k (simplified endings), as they can only move to squares that are orthogonally or diagonally adjacent. The cannon (or pao) is a major piece though, despite its inability to force mate in an simplified ending, due to its mobility and ability to attack far away squares from behind a wall of pawns, which is also why the nightrider is major.
On the idea of the distinction between major/minor/pawn and heavy/middle/light, here is a diagram.
| Heavy | Middle | Light | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Major | Amazon | Queen | Rook |
| Minor | Nightrider | Knight | Ferz |
| Pawn | N/A | Sergeant | Berolina |
See how many pieces you can think of, by changing the capture method, movement, or any other property you can think of. All new pieces must have an explanation of how they move, how they capture (if they capture in a different way to how they move) and any special properties, like royalty or their non-capturing effects on other pieces. For example, how about a compound of nightrider and rose, or a piece that is to the nightrider as the cannon is to the rook. Anything goes, as long as it is original.
Regarding the table I created on the 27th of December last year, I actually agree with Mr. Pacey's suggestion about me classifying the rook as 'light'. I think that that the class of 'light major', should be occupied by the gold general and the mann, whilst the rook moves up to the category of 'medium major'.
How about a compound piece of the zebrarider and the camelrider?
One possible way to find out if a piece was a member of the pawn family, is to imagine if they would look down at other pawns at dinner e.g. Berolina Pawn: Hey, FIDE Pawn, it sure is nice to see you. FIDE Pawn: Yeah, nice to see you too. Metamarchy Pawn: (sprints up to them) Hi you two, how's it going. FIDE Pawn: Alright, thanks- Mann: OUT OF MY WAY WEAKLINGS! (All pawns silently glare at Mann)
9 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
So, everyone knows the piece values of orthodox chess, okay. 1 for a pawn, 3 for a knight and for a bishop, 5 for a rook and 9 for a queen. But what about the values of FAIRY chess pieces? And are they major, minor, royal or pawn? And why?