Single Comment

How many of the 21 Man & Beasts have you learned well? 1? 10? All 20? No easy answers? Start with M&B03 here, the easiest. A piece moves, and there is a leap length. Now which of the compounds of Duals, always bi-compounds, deliver Mate with King alone? (not addressed much by Gilman's anti-problemist bent, let's say) Gilman notwithstanding, sufficient mating material is standard Chess criterion to separate major/minor piece-types, right? Answer: only the first two, Man(W+F) and Gnu(N+Camel), as experimenting on board shows. The formula algebraically is two times the sum of SOLLs, to find the other one that matches for each compound. If already lost, read the article and other comments. By the third one and outward the fourth, fifth, the piece-type does not achieve it. So only the first two compounds of Duals deliver mate. That means all the other compoundings of Duals are rather weak units made as they are of two long-range leapers, known to be low piece-value. All that seems to recommend them then after those first two Dual-compounds is that they triangulate. Triangulate of course is to return in three, the way Queen or King do. Now other paired leapers, for example (Dabbabah + Camel), triangulate without being Duals; so triangulating is not really all that unique. Bi-compound duals are okay as mnemonic and organizing thought as far as that goes, but not great use to put into CVs once at and beyond Camel and Zebra distances. They are essential mostly for nomenclature. For follow-up, does Gilman really stress duals in his 200 CVs? Or mostly just in the Man & Beasts? Rather than compounds of duals, I think Gilman and other designers implement long-range component with short-range atom N,F,W,D, or A. That creates a piece-type of more useful point value 3.5 to 6.0.