💡📝Charles Daniel wrote on Tue, Nov 25, 2008 08:31 PM UTC:
George Duke, thank you for your comment, but there are many inaccuracies in them that I shall address.
Firstly, there never is and never shall be any need for an inventor to " acknowledge" every instance of "similar" piece that ever existed. In a few instances as in your persistent bringing up of this flawed “airplane” piece, there is absolutely no connection. I have always stated that the Flying Bomber owes its existence to Checkers / Draughts (and which probably the airplane piece too is derived from)
Secondly, since my ZigZag Bishop/Rook differs from the Duke/Cavalier in as much degree as your Falcon does from the Bison, there is no reason why I must bend over backwards and chastise myself for simply using the word “new”. I certainly haven’t patented the piece – and I suspect I could if I wanted to.
Thirdly, I never suggested nor agreed to have delayed evaluations - that suggestion was made by another poster.
Perhaps, the question that should be raised – Am I aware of the dual path Cavalier/Duke and was my idea derived from them? The answer is yes. Earlier I had used the pieces: the Stealth Gryphon and Stealth Anti-Gryphon which are limited versions of the Gryphon and Aanca. Some logical steps for new pieces: Compound the Stealth Pieces to give the Octopus. Or make them 2 path go give the ZigZag piece set. I also played Renn Chess so I was aware of their existence. I was simply NOT particularly inspired by Renn Chess or its two pieces which itself are derived from Gryphon/Aanca.
You are free to mention what you think are similar pieces, but ultimately it is up to the inventor to state his/her inspiration regardless of whether you think he/she is being truthful or not.
As for Proliferation – this can only be a good thing in the long run. Unfortunately, I am ending my run at proliferation. My variants were created to fill what I saw as a void in chess variants whose gameplay most resembled orthodox chess. And I do believe the dropping mechanism of Ninja Pawns fulfills this more on a 10x10 board than pushing the armies closer as in Grand Chess or by using a 10x8 board.
And I just don't buy the claim that the quality was so much higher in the first decade. This is a myth. What was invented earlier can be and has being improved upon.
I sincerely hope that others will continue where I left off – which is mainly adding one or two pieces to 10x10 board and strive for balanced gameplay.
George Duke, thank you for your comment, but there are many inaccuracies in them that I shall address.
Firstly, there never is and never shall be any need for an inventor to " acknowledge" every instance of "similar" piece that ever existed. In a few instances as in your persistent bringing up of this flawed “airplane” piece, there is absolutely no connection. I have always stated that the Flying Bomber owes its existence to Checkers / Draughts (and which probably the airplane piece too is derived from)
Secondly, since my ZigZag Bishop/Rook differs from the Duke/Cavalier in as much degree as your Falcon does from the Bison, there is no reason why I must bend over backwards and chastise myself for simply using the word “new”. I certainly haven’t patented the piece – and I suspect I could if I wanted to.
Thirdly, I never suggested nor agreed to have delayed evaluations - that suggestion was made by another poster.
Perhaps, the question that should be raised – Am I aware of the dual path Cavalier/Duke and was my idea derived from them? The answer is yes. Earlier I had used the pieces: the Stealth Gryphon and Stealth Anti-Gryphon which are limited versions of the Gryphon and Aanca. Some logical steps for new pieces: Compound the Stealth Pieces to give the Octopus. Or make them 2 path go give the ZigZag piece set. I also played Renn Chess so I was aware of their existence. I was simply NOT particularly inspired by Renn Chess or its two pieces which itself are derived from Gryphon/Aanca.You are free to mention what you think are similar pieces, but ultimately it is up to the inventor to state his/her inspiration regardless of whether you think he/she is being truthful or not.
As for Proliferation – this can only be a good thing in the long run. Unfortunately, I am ending my run at proliferation. My variants were created to fill what I saw as a void in chess variants whose gameplay most resembled orthodox chess. And I do believe the dropping mechanism of Ninja Pawns fulfills this more on a 10x10 board than pushing the armies closer as in Grand Chess or by using a 10x8 board.And I just don't buy the claim that the quality was so much higher in the first decade. This is a myth. What was invented earlier can be and has being improved upon.
I sincerely hope that others will continue where I left off – which is mainly adding one or two pieces to 10x10 board and strive for balanced gameplay.