Single Comment

It's a gip. It's a rook. Why, because that Rook's only worth 3.0! Actually, having so many different Rooks worth 3.0 points advantages C.D.A. How so? There are four fundamental chess pieces. No quibbling: that says 'fundamental', not elemental, like one-step rook-Wazir could be 'elemental'. Anyway 'fundamental' as descriptor represents importantly both strict mutual exclusivity as to arrival square and differing movement modes between radial and oblique. For all four forces to draw one upon another, come about multi-path Falcon and leaping Knight set off aslant. Value-wise from 8x8 to 10x10 (64, 65, 66...99, 100) there are Rook 5.0, Falcon 5.0*, Bishop 3.0, Knight 3.0. The continued equality of Bishop and Knight in general through 100, but not much over, means conventional pontificators, Seirawan for instance at S.C. essay (http://www.seirawanchess.com), are wrong on the Knight's extreme suffering so early. Now for variety, exploring exclusion of Knight and Bishop to elevate the major chess pieces Falcon and Rook alone, Chess Different Army become the like of 'H_F_W_Q_K_L_F_E' is equal-forced to the lot: fabulous fides, pizza Kings, Clobberers, nutty Knights.... The Rook derivatives in that line-up above, each worth 3.0, are W Water Rook, L Land Rook, H White Rook, E Red Rook. Divergent White Rook is also called Rook-One and divergent Red Rook Rook-Two. It is okay to consider Water Rook and Land Rook as the same piece-type of two bindings. '5+3+3+K+9+3+3+5' are values across totalling the Betzan 31.0. Call this new C.D.A. the Rookery or the Rookeries, HFWQKLFE. Not only are they the required betzan/fide 31.0, the exercise is interesting in own right to achieve equality in value at 3.0 among all of Rook(s), Knight, and Bishop: integration of forces. *Thanks to Muller's oomputer determination