Enter Your Reply

Alfred, I don't think it matters much that names sometimes collide. If I
search the Internet, and check the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, then I
will find that all the good names are already taken. If the name
'Scorpion' had already been used by an established chess variant, then I
would have chosen another name. But the 'Scorpion King' is more of a
phantasy piece,it's fun, but will surface very rarely. I did not know
about the 'Elch', but it seems like it hasn't even been implemented in
a game(?). Then it's no problem at all. I can employ that name for a
piece that is likely to be more successful than the 'Elch'.

In chess it is common rule that it's not the first inventor of a
variation that has the right to the variation name. The variation receives
the name of the chessplayer who has employed the variation, analysed it,
played it, and put down a great deal of work in it. Anybody could invent
opening variations 'en masse'. This does not mean that they belong to
this chess player and that ECO should relate his name. It's the same
thing with chess pieces. Anybody could invent chess pieces. But that's
not enough. He has to employ them in a game construct, etc. And when it
has become established and well-known, then the piece name is fully
established, too. I don't think anybody would name their new pieces
Chancellor or Archbishop, for instance.