Single Comment

Without user identification, it is hard to relocate Gilman's positions. Here it is one. I disagree with Gilman on different names for the same unusual piece-type. It is frankly ridiculous. Preoccupation by CVers since year 2000 makes them unaware of earlier names by problemists. One name should be enough for rare exotic pieces, and when priority is discovered it is preferred to stay with the problemists' (or earlier designer's) name. What they do is what CVers do, or should be, despite our malaise of proliferation during these aughts (2000-2009). Take Hoppers. Listed by George Jeliss ''All the King's Men,'' many wonderful hopper-pieces seldom or never appear in CVs fortunately as yet. Virgin territory, but CVers will never learn some things should be left alone. When they eventually do, please it is better to try using Jeliss' established catalogue. Gilman's nomenclature is employed spottily at best, more by myself than anyone. Gilman's system has failed to catch on, and I happen to be its chief adherent for long-range leapers. Let's simplify tasks by not sloppily projecting re-naming into the 21st century, as done with Carrera Centaur and Champion over 4 centuries. Then exhaustive nomenclature may come to have some utility.