Single Comment

[Later noticing: Smith's next to last comment this thread states some outright nonsense, but improved tone of his last one excludes further comment.] Larry Smith is trying to communicate but his words are not very understandable, and I pass on rereading Smith's very last comment for comprehension. Smith's early sentences are stilted, incoherent or incorrect, but I appreciate they are courteous (I think). [Postcript below] Smith is sort of ''rapping'' out some jargon words and phrases he thinks are important. What is far, far more important than that Falcon Chess exists in an old patent (document disclosure 1995, applied 1996, granted 1997, based on inventor's notebook to 1992), is that Falcon is one of the four fundamental Chess pieces. Jeremy Good calls three-path Falcon ''the greatest innovation in Chess in four hundred years.'' Good is thinking of Carrera's Centaur and Champion of early 1600s for that landmark. Regardless whether that bears out, Falcon Chess will continue to be protected by registered Copyrights, Trademark (in abeyance), and Patent. The book I am writing on Falcon draws heavily on many various characterizations I have made in this comment system, become a useful filing system, and a few descriptions here also of others. So, thanks to Chess Variant Page to contend here with views of different persuasion and quality. And everyone for their interest in the patented novelty, sure Track One material. (I have not decided yet how to weave Falcon into ''NextChess3.'') // On Smith's mention of ''duplication,'' the legal priniciple of equivalents allows for wide divergence being part of the same patent. I brought up ''equivalents'' several times here already.