Enter Your Reply The Comment You're Replying To George Duke wrote on Thu, Dec 15, 2011 05:33 PM UTC:Gilman's singling out what are called Rook-Colour-One and Rook-Colour-Two suggests they are better than Land Rook and Water Rook. That is probably correct. I change my priotizing between the two pairs as of now, in case of ever putting them into a CV or using the C.D.A line-up. If Gilman wants to re-name them, that is fine too, just so please continue noting they are invented right here. Recall Land Rook and Water Rook are not divergent. Land Rook just stays on dark both modes and Water Rook on light. They both have Ferz one-step option and remain colourbound -- Rook-counterparts to Bishops. Contrastingly, Rook-One and Rook-Two are divergent in passive Rookwise and active only on respective squares light and dark. Their passive mode makes them not colourbound. There could be a sort of lesson. Water and Land Rooks seem more basic in their not having divergency, but divergent (hence more complicated) Rooks-One and -Two seem to be the 'better' piece-type pair. Forget Thoreau's ''Simplify, simplify, simplify.'' Edit Form You may not post a new comment, because ItemID ChessboardMath9 does not match any item.