Single Comment

Unlike Sissa, Falcon is of intermediate range. Short-range, regardless of recent re-interpretations, is one step and maybe two. Two steps are the transition to intermediate: Pawns' gaining two-step 500 years ago gave them some intermediate mobility. The patent 5690334 writes in the beginning Background under 'E' written 13 years ago: ''A move of three squares is intriguing because it is of intermediate range. In orthodox chess, at one extreme are the king, the pawns and the knights, that all move less than three squares. At the other extreme are the bishops, rooks and the queen that all can move more than three squares. A movement pattern of some intermediate range, like three-square, is more likely to preserve the nature and dynamics of orthodox pieces' existing interrelationships.'' Intermediate would be 2, 3, or 4 steps, but it is arbitrary because, for example, Falcon is more effective long-range than Bishop, on account of Bishop's being blocked most directions most of the time. It would be interesting to determine in huge sample on 8x8 whether Bishop's average maximum move in the real game scores is greater than 3; I would guess 2.6 or 2.8. That includes wide-open end games (with each position counted once and equally), where Bishop's range becomes likely automatically at least 4 (from the center), though too potentially blocked. Now Falcon also on 8x8 would come out 2.3 to 2.9, the average of a very, very lengthy string of 0's and 3's appropriately weighted. So, who is long-range really, Falcon or Bishop?