George Duke wrote on Sun, Aug 19, 2007 08:15 PM UTC:
New thread of Demonstrations that Marshall(RN) & Cardinal(BN) are fatally flawed, to be extended. DEMO (I): Dave's Silly Chess Game (2x2)
2 q_k 2 m_k 2 c_k
1 K_Q makes sense. 1 K_M and 1 K_C do not. Think about it.
DEMONSTRATION (II): Conclusion of 'Multipath Chess Pieces': 'Beyond
chronology, any rule of movement writ large, having real-world counterparts allegorically, describes something multiform and multipath, whereof reduction to mere leaper or rider is actually the special case'. Thus the NORM is multi-path. A piece that moves to only (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) and (1,5), conventional Rook squares, called by Betza Short Rook, moves stepwise like Wazir. But that is only one possibility. For example, 'Sissa', moving any number as Bishop and same number 'orthogonally in one direction', also reaches Rook squares: e1-f2-e2, e1-f2-g3-f3-e3 and so on. Sissa is two-path to Rook squares (e.g., e1-d2-e2 etc.) In reality, there are innumerable pathways to each Rook square. Frivolously, 'Earthquake' goes 13 straight forward, 12 diagonally backward and 12 cross-horizontally to Rook (1,2). Also an example, specifying an unnamed piece moving e1-f2-e2-f3-e3-f4 and so on being two-way also to Rook squares, differently from Sissa. Once specifying a path such as e1-e2-e3-e4-e5-e6-e7-e8, it establishes an extreme no longer normal 'multi-path', in this case, a Rook Slider, one-path. VERY OPPOSITE EXTREME is no pathway at all, a Leaper, such as Dabbabah to (1,3) or Trebouchet(1,4), or Camel(2,4). There would be innumerable multi-path alternatives to any of those target squares of prototypical Leaper, all become inapplicable, once defined as such.