I've just finished a game of Symmetric Chess. At first I was seduced by this rule of Bishop's conversion, but finally I am not so convinced. My opponent was playing with White, so his two Bishops were on white squares. He moved c-Bishop first, then he lost it. So, only his g-Bishop remained on its initial square unmoved and was waiting for a conversion non-capturing move that never came.
I found rather confusing looking at this chessboard with this unique remaining Bishop standing on g1 and unable to move on the diagonals. An observer coming at this moment would not understand why the Bishop cannot move and capture a piece on f2 or h2.
So the rule is clear, but I found this a bit bizarre after all.
I've just finished a game of Symmetric Chess. At first I was seduced by this rule of Bishop's conversion, but finally I am not so convinced. My opponent was playing with White, so his two Bishops were on white squares. He moved c-Bishop first, then he lost it. So, only his g-Bishop remained on its initial square unmoved and was waiting for a conversion non-capturing move that never came.
I found rather confusing looking at this chessboard with this unique remaining Bishop standing on g1 and unable to move on the diagonals. An observer coming at this moment would not understand why the Bishop cannot move and capture a piece on f2 or h2.
So the rule is clear, but I found this a bit bizarre after all.