[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Lance. Moves one or more squares straight forward.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Well, at least its better then the pawn.
Making the most of bad pieces can be a lot of fun. Anyone can get a lot done with their knight+bishop+rook superpiece. Accomplishing the same task with a lame piece like the lance is much more satisfying.
Which is better, a lance or a rook that can make side move only?
There are hystory of pieces in other piececlopedia articles! Why there is no hystory here? There at least must be written that lance is related to rook! Or it's wrong? If it's wrong, there must be written that 'some people think think that lance is related to rook but it's wrong' (i read in some articles of hystory of chess that it's related to rook). Also note that lance is wrong name, it's real name is insance chariot, it's called 'lance' in same articles, where Angle walker is called bishop (and it's not bishop at all, just have same moves)!
This piece does indeed have connection with the Rook - it occupies the corners of the board, as the Rook does elsewhere, and both pieces' Shogi names refer to the Rook's origin representing a chariot. Given that link, it is strange that it gets called a Lance. Rooks (in any sense) don't have lances, knights do. I could understand if they'd called the next piece along a Lance - although to avoid confusion I avoid calling any piece Lance.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, Mar 27, 2010 12:07 PM UTC:I always thought the name Lance was quite an obvious description of what the piece does: you stick it deep into the opponent to do damage.
It is also easy to symbolize. WinBoard uses these symbols for it in Shogi.I think, 'lance' is convenient name for Europeans, as symbol wich is usually used in western sets (long arrow, pointing forward, while symbols of generals are usually short arrows, pointing in directond, where generals moves) reminds spear (but i am not sure that it's true). And that's why i prefer i prefer to call it ragnat chariot. Nevermind, i wanted to tell one interesting thing: look at this page: http://history.chess.free.fr/xiangqi.htm -it describes history of Xiang-qi, but i was interested by this paragrph (citation): 'The eldest undeniable reference for the Xianqi is the Xuanguai lu (‘Tales of the obscure and peculiar’) writen by the Tang Minister of State Niu Sengru (779-847), a collection of tales of the supernatural. One is telling the of Cen Shun dreaming of a battle to come (which was supposed to occur in 762 AD.): 'the celestial Horse springs aslant over three, the Commanders go sideaways and attack on all four sides, the baggage-waggons go straight forwards and never backwards, the six men in armour (or the men armed with six weapons) go in file but no backwards... On both sides stuff was unpacked, stones and arrows flew across.' To make it absolutely clear, these moves can be deduced from the text, but not with certainty. Since the source is unique the greatest prudence is recommended. There is just another mention in poem from Niu's contemporary and friend Bo Juyi (772-846) which explicitly evoke Soldiers and Charriots.' -description of baggage-waggons strongly reminds fragnat chariots!
It's very interesting piece. Itself is stronger than gold general, but as it moves only forward, it must promote.
Stating that it is stronger than the Goldgeneral is a simplification. It gets weaker the further forward it moves. Look at what it is once on the eighth rank. By then promotion is more than justified.
9 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.