The difficulty with viewing e.g. the 2.griffin/running ostrich as R2âthenâB is that the obvious reading of that (in line with the obvious reading of full ârook then bishopââââsee also the large shogis' ârookâthenârookâ and âbishopâthenâbishopâ hook movers) suggests that it could also make the Bishop move after only a single Wazir step, becoming effectively a compound of griffon and ostrichâââwhat Gilman called a Fimbriated griffon (after a kind of outline in heraldry). Which is really quite powerful and not what either of us means afaict.
My view here is that the usual Ostrich (and Osprey) have a move along a given path, but the shortest of its moves is two stepsâââsomething it has in common with Tamerlane's picket, Alfonso X's unicorn, and indeed Shatranj's and XiaÌng QiÌ's elephant. For the picket and elephant, the 2âstep move is nonâcoprime, and so a oneâstep move can be trivially interpolated: for the former this gives the familiar Bishop, while the latter gave a piece that was dubbed the âmodernâ elephant (and of course with a modern dabbaba to match). For the unicorn it is less trivial (the knight has two possible interpolations) but extending the longârange move backwards suggests orthogonalâthenâdiagonal over the alternative, giving our Manticore.
In the Osprey's and Ostrich's case, the 2âstep shortest move, as with the picket and elephant, is nonâcoprime, and so the obvious interpolation lines up with your 2.bent riders. In the Osprey's case, the alternative exists of doing as with the unicorn and extending backwards, giving a ferzâthenâbishopâatâ90°, but fsr 90° turns seem (aboveâmentioned hook movers notwithstanding) to be less favoured.
I don't disagree about blockability: what I have termed ârunningâ, as opposed to the preeÌxisting âmodernâ, is explicitly blockableâââthough arguably calling them âlame/stepping modernâ os[prey/triche]s is just as descriptive. Fergus' helical pieces also differ from Charles' Proselyte âc in being (by default) blockable, as well as interpolating.
As for 3âorâmore.gryphons/manticores, it might indeed be interesting to have names for those (though they might begin to veer into being a little too exotic?), but it'd be equally useful imo to have names for the equally unusual threeleaperâthenâbishop or quibblerâthenârook.
The difficulty with viewing e.g. the 2.griffin/running ostrich as R2âthenâB is that the obvious reading of that (in line with the obvious reading of full ârook then bishopââââsee also the large shogis' ârookâthenârookâ and âbishopâthenâbishopâ hook movers) suggests that it could also make the Bishop move after only a single Wazir step, becoming effectively a compound of griffon and ostrichâââwhat Gilman called a Fimbriated griffon (after a kind of outline in heraldry). Which is really quite powerful and not what either of us means afaict.
My view here is that the usual Ostrich (and Osprey) have a move along a given path, but the shortest of its moves is two stepsâââsomething it has in common with Tamerlane's picket, Alfonso X's unicorn, and indeed Shatranj's and XiaÌng QiÌ's elephant. For the picket and elephant, the 2âstep move is nonâcoprime, and so a oneâstep move can be trivially interpolated: for the former this gives the familiar Bishop, while the latter gave a piece that was dubbed the âmodernâ elephant (and of course with a modern dabbaba to match). For the unicorn it is less trivial (the knight has two possible interpolations) but extending the longârange move backwards suggests orthogonalâthenâdiagonal over the alternative, giving our Manticore.
In the Osprey's and Ostrich's case, the 2âstep shortest move, as with the picket and elephant, is nonâcoprime, and so the obvious interpolation lines up with your 2.bent riders. In the Osprey's case, the alternative exists of doing as with the unicorn and extending backwards, giving a ferzâthenâbishopâatâ90°, but fsr 90° turns seem (aboveâmentioned hook movers notwithstanding) to be less favoured.
I don't disagree about blockability: what I have termed ârunningâ, as opposed to the preeÌxisting âmodernâ, is explicitly blockableâââthough arguably calling them âlame/stepping modernâ os[prey/triche]s is just as descriptive. Fergus' helical pieces also differ from Charles' Proselyte âc in being (by default) blockable, as well as interpolating.
As for 3âorâmore.gryphons/manticores, it might indeed be interesting to have names for those (though they might begin to veer into being a little too exotic?), but it'd be equally useful imo to have names for the equally unusual threeleaperâthenâbishop or quibblerâthenârook.