Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Jan 2, 2021 07:45 PM UTC:
That's a good idea to abandon absolutes in this case, H.G.
I'm wondering if there might also be an approach that abandons absolutes when it comes to declaring what a fairy chess 'pawn' class might be. I'm rather stumped on how define such a class, with or without absolutes. Perhaps it is a hopeless task, in that a given CV can use a piece as a fairy chess non-pawn or 'pawn' depending on the setup that is selected by the inventor for the CV, for example (e.g. Joe Joyce's Chieftain Chess uses guards numerously in the setup).
There might be endless criteria for what could qualify as a fairy chess 'pawn', though somehow I doubt that should be the case. Have you given much thought to what might be classed as a fairy chess 'pawn'?
That's a good idea to abandon absolutes in this case, H.G.
I'm wondering if there might also be an approach that abandons absolutes when it comes to declaring what a fairy chess 'pawn' class might be. I'm rather stumped on how define such a class, with or without absolutes. Perhaps it is a hopeless task, in that a given CV can use a piece as a fairy chess non-pawn or 'pawn' depending on the setup that is selected by the inventor for the CV, for example (e.g. Joe Joyce's Chieftain Chess uses guards numerously in the setup).
There might be endless criteria for what could qualify as a fairy chess 'pawn', though somehow I doubt that should be the case. Have you given much thought to what might be classed as a fairy chess 'pawn'?