Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I think Angryph, as a contracted version of Anti-gryph, is an excellent name. For the Ski-Angryph I would prefer Hippogryph. Maogryph for the lame version also doesn't sound bad.

As to the mating potential: it cannot have any, as it is a color alternator. This is the reason I chose it as the super-piece in Team-Mate Chess, as no single piece was supposed to have any mating potential there.

Since the Angryph is a very powerful piece, I would be very surprised if it did not have mating potential in combination with any other piece that can access the entire board, no matter how weak. I think it can be proven that a Bishop can force checkmate in combination with any unbound piece, on rectangular boards of any size. For the Angryph, which also covers diagonals, it should be similar. I am not completely sure how this would work out together with a color-bound piece, but on 8x8 an Angryph has no problem checkmating a bare King together with a Ferz (as I just tried out in Fairy-Max).

I have no problem sticking with the name Aanca, and I don't really like the name Angryph. The name makes it sound angry.

I have no problem sticking with the name Aanca, and I don't really like the name Angryph. The name makes it sound angry.

I don't like Angryph either for the same reason.  But I'm also not fond of the idea of continuing to call it Aanca, since that was based on a mistake.  I do like H.G.'s idea of Hippogryph for the knight-then-bishop (ski-angryph).  Maybe Manticore for the wazir-then-bishop (angryph)?  I think someone suggested that on here earlier and I like it.

There is something to be said for uniform naming of the entire X-then-Y family, making all their names variations on the 'gryph' root.

In Team-Mate Chess I picked Acromantula when Aanca was downvoted, because I liked the spider connection (since it moves in 8 directions, the legs of the spider), and because I had earlier released the game in Fairy-Max using the piece ID 'A' for it, and changing that would break compatibility with previously saved games. But how I call it in Team-Mate Chess of course doesn't have to concern anyone, and in particular doesn't have to affect how it is listed in the Piececlopedia. In Elven Chess I use 'Elf' for the Dragon Horse, and 'Goblin' for the Dragon King, after all. (And 'Dwarf' for the Man.)

It also doesn't bother me much that Aanca is the Spanish name for the Gryphon piece. After all, Alfil is the Spanish name for a Bishop. It is a fact of life that piece names differ per language. I once proposed the name Ancaa for the W-then-B, to express that it is similar to the original Aanca = Gryphon, but yet somewhat different (namely 45-degree rotated). As in English we tend to refer to the original Aanca as Gryphon, the fact that they are pronounced nearly the same is no problem.

Please correct my name to write it right: no 'e' in my name. Strongly hoping that you will not continue in perpetuating a mistake with Aanca. Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum.

I updated the page to correct the spelling of your name.

There is a solution to respect the historical background which links those bent riders finishing on diagonal with unicorns, rhinos, etc. And starting with a A (as this seems the most important criteria for you):

Alicorn.

See here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alicorn#English

I suspected the naming would be the most immediately controversial part of this :) The ‘angry’ in ‘angryph’, even if only in written form, is a bit unfortunate — I suppose one could compromise with ‘angriph’, though griphon/griphin is completely unsttested afaik and imo looks a bit odd.

I share only weakly the reservations regarding Aanca as the primary name for the page (H. G.'s point about Alfil is imo a valid one, and even more pronounced in the case of our Queen, which is still Ferz in Russian and Wazir in Arabic iirc); in any case, given its wide use, it is, as mentioned in the notes, probably worth having at least as an alias link.

The problem with both Manticore and Alicorn, from the perspertive of a Piecelopedia submission, is that both are afaik completely without precedent in actual games: on that account Aanca wins outright, with Rhino and Spider somewhere behind.

My own reservation with angryph — and H. G.'s suggestion of using the ‘gryph‐’ root generally for bent riders, is that it suggests that the (ferz‐then‐rook) gryphon is somehow more primary, which is true neither mathematically nor historically — it just happened to have a name commonly established first. Though apparently it may be etymologically connected with ‘cherub’, so that may be an option for future usage (though still perhaps not for this page aþm) — ‘angel’ even starts with A (though M&B09 uses it for ferz‐then‐dabbabarider, David Paulowich's ‘Spotted Gryphon’ — there's no winning this, is there??︎)

The name suggestions for the ski‐ and lame versions, while perhaps somewhat interesting (though I'm less interested in nomenclature myself), are imo a little beside the point: as far as I'm concerned the discussion is about the title of the page as a whole, and thus the name of the main piece described on it.

I've added the note about mating potential to the paragraph on colourswitching.

@Jean‐Louis: My apologies for the orthographical error. One of those occasions where a basic familiarity with spoken French did not work in my favour :)

Strongly hoping that you will not continue in perpetuating a mistake with Aanca. Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum.

What mistake? Betza did not say that the piece was known by this name historically. Here is what he wrote:

Not described there is a piece which makes a one step Rook move and then continues outwards as a Bishop. For lack of a name, I'll call it the Aanca (13th century Spanish for "Gryphon").

Calling this a mistake is like calling it a mistake for me to name a piece in one of my games a Cavalier, because that is actually the French word for the Knight.

As you want Fergus. You are playing with the words. I call this adding confusion. The Cavalier was also a very bad idea. Taking the name of the pieces in languages to give them another meaning in English is a poor choice, especially when this is done for a piece which is a counterpart of the original one. If you wish is to make CVP meaningful for only people with English as mother tongue, then you are right.

I don't think we should over-emphasize the importance of what we do here. Designers of chess variants will call the pieces as they see fit, and it is very questionable whether this can be influenced by how we name this Piececlopedia page. As yet I don't see any reason not to stick to the name Acromantula in Team-Mate Chess. (And I don't understand this bias versus modern mythical monsters versus those from antiquety.)

We cannot undo the past, niether the 13th century, nor the 20th. So we cannot escape the fact that Betza used the name Aanca for W-then-B, and that a lot of discussion that has taken place here or elsewhere have used this name. As there doesn't seem to be a method yet to access Piececlopedia pages by move description, posting the description of this piece under a name that so far no one has used will only lead to no one ever reading the page. As an attempt for changing the name, that would be kind of a bust. Whatever idea we want to promote here, we'd better make sure that someone would actually read it.

So I think the best we could do is make sure the page is accessible in the index under the name Aanca, and explain in detail on the page that the name historically referred to another piece, which could cause confusion, and for those who want to respect history could be a reason to avoid that name for the W-then-B. And on the Griffon page mention that historically that piece was called Aanca, but that this name now sometimes is usurped to indicate another piece (and refer to the W-then-B page). That maximizes the information that we will be able to disseminate, an people can then make their own decisions on what to do, given this context.

Yes, there will need to be an index entry for Aanca directing to this page (whatever we call it) or people won't find it.

Acromantula is not a bad name and it has the virtue of actually being used. I'm fine with calling the page that. Or if there are objections, we could just call the page 'Griffon compliment'

... we could just call the page 'Griffon compliment'

'Rotated Griffon' seems to cover it more precisely. (Or 'Tilted Griffon'?)

It would be good to have a general term for indicating a piece that has swapped the orthogonal and diagonal moves of a reference piece.

As you want Fergus. You are playing with the words. I call this adding confusion.

That's not really an answer to my question. I find it confusing when someone tries to mess with the names popularized by Ralph Betza. I'm currently playing a game of Apothecary Chess-Modern, which has been made confusing by calling the Aanca a Griffin and the Griffin a Dragon, and I've been told this was at your suggestion. My understanding is that Betza translated the Spanish name into English and used the English word for the piece, which is perfectly legitimate, and he then intentionally repurposed the Spanish name for another piece, which was a deliberate decision rather than a mistake.

The Cavalier was also a very bad idea. Taking the name of the pieces in languages to give them another meaning in English is a poor choice, especially when this is done for a piece which is a counterpart of the original one.

In case you're not aware, Cavalier is an English word that happens to have the same spelling as the French word for the Knight. As an English word, it was a suitable name. French players could use the French word for Horse.

If you wish is to make CVP meaningful for only people with English as mother tongue, then you are right.

That's my language, and I am not bilingual. So, there is not a lot I can do about making the CVP meaningful for speakers of other languages. That has to be the job of foreign language editors and translators.

I'm currently playing a game of Apothecary Chess-Modern, which has been made confusing by calling the Aanca a Griffin and the Griffin a Dragon, and I've been told this was at your suggestion.

I think this was a miscommunication since English is not the primary language of Aurelian or Jean-Louis.  Jean-Louis objected to calling the wazir-than-bishop an Aanca, but I don't think he meant to call it a Griffin.  Indeed, it is very confusing that Apothecary has both the Griffin piece and the Griffin name from Grant Acedrex but assigns the name to a different piece.

I think this was a miscommunication since English is not the primary language of Aurelian or Jean-Louis.

That may be. Regardless, I think the best way to stem confusion is to favor popular contemporary usage over historically accurate usage. For example, we would not want to say that the Champion in Omega Chess should be called something else, because that name historically belonged to the piece we now call a Chancellor, Marshall, or Empress.

Yes, indeed a lot of miscommunication. My mistake is probably my willingness to share my researches. I'm glad when someone is teaching me something outside my domain, such as computer science for me. I had appreciated a lot the help I've got here for the presets for example. If my sayings looks pedant, I apologise, it is not at all my goal.

Indeed I never proposed to call Gryphon a W-then-B or N-then-B. In addition to a confusion of pieces, there is also a confusion of people.

I know that Cavalier also exists in English. It is a direct loan from French as about 30% of the English lexicon. There is a Cavalier as a court in K6T-deck (https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/k6t). That example was obviously chosen because I'm French. The message is clear, I got it.

@Greg, The Dragon, Griffin choice was mine and I'm responsible for it. What Jean-Louis objected too calling the wazir then bishop an aanca. That is all. I had chosen 2 legendary beasts and assigned the stronger beast to the stronger piece. Hopefully I have not created too much havoc.

Well, you surely made it very confusing, by using the name Griffon for a different piece than what it is almost universally used for. I am sure there are zillions of mythical monsters you could have chosen from to avoid that.

Yes, it is unfortunate, as if you are trying to confuse people. Additionally, I am not sure that F-then-R is stronger than W-then-B. Nor am I sure that a dragon is stronger than a griffin.

Re names, I much prefer Acromantula over Rotated/Tilted/Complement of/Altered Griffon as I consider neither one more/less basic. As for a generic term for pieces with ortho‐/diagonal components swapped, something with ‘complement’ seems appropriate (suggesting a symmetrical relationship) — perhaps ‘diagonal complement’ or ‘radial complement’? For pieces with only one kind of radial move Charles Gilman uses ‘dual’, but for pieces mixing them that's subtly different. The concept is more complicated on 3D boards so the terminology needn't take that into account.

@Aurelian: fwiw, Daniil Frolov's variant (mentioned on the page) uses Gryphon for its usual referent and Dragon for the t[WB], so that way round wouldn't be without precedent — in fact I'd initially forgotten the name change from Gryphon/Aanca and assumed that the Dragon was the t[WB] when drafting this.

I've updated this with some rewrites for parsimony, better reflection of historical precedence, typo fixes, and a couple small additional bits of info; also I've changed it to refer to acromantula rather than angryph (though I haven't changed the index info yet), since it seems, at the moment, to be the least controversial choice, and changed some of the text to suit that also.

Would be good to get some pointers on the remaining bullet points in the ‘notes to the eds’ as well :)

Edit: taking a look at the upload dates for some of the linked articles, the history is still a bit off; I'll fix it soon

Edit 2: Done; most historically‐relevant things should now be in the right order, as far as I can find. I've also removed the reference to the alternative spelling of ‘Angryph’ as it doesn't really fit in the *narrative of the page as it now is, and is in any case without historical precedent.

For Harding's article: Dead links is a regular part of niche internet interests, unfortunately. I would use the Wayback Machine archive. Additionally, it might be worth adding that piece as being invented "in the 1960s by George Botterill", and changing "Harding's Transcendental Prelate" to "Botterill's" in the anchorite paragraph.

For naming on this page, I disagree in part with H.G.: if we come to some consensus here, then it will probably trickle into variants. People are welcome to name pieces however they want in variants, absolutely, but anyone finding this page before re-inventing the piece will be at least slightly inclined to use this name. If we can't come to anything close to consensus, then I'd suggest the article title to actually be something like "Wazir-then-bishop", and anything for the text.

Personally, I think avoiding Aanca is best (but of course with an index entry for Aanca pointing to this page, and I would suggest mentioning earlier in the article the Aanca name). I'd be pretty happy with either Anchorite or Acromantula. (I get the preference for non-modern myth, but don't think it's more important than other considerations.) I also like Manticore.

I'm fine with Anchorite, Acromantula, Alicorn, Manticore, or failing that, Wazir-then-Bishop.

Personally, Manticore is my favorite although it has no precedent. I prefer non-modern myth but agree it is not more important than other considerations.