George Duke wrote on Tue, Jul 15, 2008 04:36 PM UTC:
Definitely okay but unaesthetic Centaur and Champion(RN) had their eulogy
announced 17.January.2008 at Grotesque Chess, where respectfully called
venerable and creative for Carrera's time, setting up a 400-year shadow
Chess still widely regarded. However, there can be no respect for RN and
BN overuse claiming new CVs, as Muller points out. This old thread
''Fatally Flawed'' has each of 10 Demos different, all so far using
board positions. DEMONSTRATION IX: Major lack of aesthetics in
BN(Cardinal) + RN(Marshall) is being two different pieces. Out of the
ordinary Janus Chess uses two BN on 8x10. Where are two RN on 8x10?
Practically nowhere, you don't do that, because (notwithstanding
exceptions like Janus) the pieces cannot stand on their own hindlegs. Each
dependently needs the other somehow presumptively to balance right. What other different
pieces more or less are always mated up that way in designs? Very few. (We
can think of some later you forget.) For example, Berolina Pawn is not
matched 50-50 with Orthodox Pawns (except Overby's). If Templar is any
good piece, introduce two Templars (Templar Chess), and at least do not
require its accompanying inverse, contrapositive, companion, whatever
always. Dreadful Omega Chess even implements two ''Champions'' (WAD) and
two Wizards (Ferz+Camel), based on their strengths, such as they are. If
Winther's Mastodon Chess new-old piece up to two squares is great, it
does not need supporting cast mandatorily.
