George Duke wrote on Fri, Feb 12, 2010 05:42 PM UTC:
Grandmaster is Jaguaribe piece-type invention in the starting comment of
this thread. I back-corrected the error -- since nobody spoke to catch it yet -- showing now correctly and importantly that the analysis
of Grandmaster should go:
{Grandmaster:Nightrider} = {Dabbabante:Dabbabah-Rider}. It could be
extended too of course to {Grandmaster:Nightrider:Knight} =
{Dabbabante:Dabbabah-Rider:Dabbabah} = {Buddha:Rook:Wazir} =
{Rakshasa:Bishop:Ferz}. That shows also the parallel to Ramayana
piece-types:
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/contest84/ramayanachess.html.
There in analysis sometimes Buddha is called Rook-all, and Rakshasa is called Bishop-all.
There is still the query, what species is a super-Grandmaster? In other words, what logical strengthening or extension to Grandmaster whilst keeping the definitional arrival squares and modality intact? Then the ''Super-'', or ''Super-Super-'' as the case may be, could be generalized to the other factored piece-types hierarchized. In practice, we learn that super-strong is not necessarily better, and is usually worse, eschewing and disrupting subtlety, and flying in the face of our best sense of chess geometry(Kasparov). Of which f.i.d.e. itself is incomplete and incorrect: from distant previous discussions and of future discussions -- part and parcel of ongoing Next Chess project...
Grandmaster is Jaguaribe piece-type invention in the starting comment of this thread. I back-corrected the error -- since nobody spoke to catch it yet -- showing now correctly and importantly that the analysis of Grandmaster should go: {Grandmaster:Nightrider} = {Dabbabante:Dabbabah-Rider}. It could be extended too of course to {Grandmaster:Nightrider:Knight} = {Dabbabante:Dabbabah-Rider:Dabbabah} = {Buddha:Rook:Wazir} = {Rakshasa:Bishop:Ferz}. That shows also the parallel to Ramayana piece-types: http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/contest84/ramayanachess.html. There in analysis sometimes Buddha is called Rook-all, and Rakshasa is called Bishop-all. There is still the query, what species is a super-Grandmaster? In other words, what logical strengthening or extension to Grandmaster whilst keeping the definitional arrival squares and modality intact? Then the ''Super-'', or ''Super-Super-'' as the case may be, could be generalized to the other factored piece-types hierarchized. In practice, we learn that super-strong is not necessarily better, and is usually worse, eschewing and disrupting subtlety, and flying in the face of our best sense of chess geometry(Kasparov). Of which f.i.d.e. itself is incomplete and incorrect: from distant previous discussions and of future discussions -- part and parcel of ongoing Next Chess project...