Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

@Daniel: on the GC page for Skica, there is no link to send to this Skica page here. The word "Skica" under the diagram is not active a as link.

Also this GC page has (in its bottom) a link to a Skical preset, but this link goes to 404 Error.

I have a game on-going. My opponent had misunderstood the moves of the Ski-pieces. He thought that these pieces must hop a piece in the first square to move, which could be a wrong interpretation of "but always hops over the first square". He had not realised that they may cross an empty first square. Maybe you could be more specific in the text.

I like this game.

No, I think we have said everything. Initially I just posted an idea with a very open mindset, as a game to see more proposals, because I found Daniel's ideas excellent. Instead all I got were answers a bit rude, at least this how I received them, and you came last, sorry. Not a single positive comment, I guess my idea was really bad. Many people here are programmers or skilled in computer science, which is excellent. Hence, those discussions based on rhetorics with comparisons, extrapolations, generalisations, to prove by A+B that someone is right and the someone else is wrong. But I'm not a computer and I know that I'm not always consistent or logical (actually nobody is). And probably over sensitive sometimes as I don't master this language with enough subtilities. Let's close this here now, there is no problem.

Hopefully one has still the right to have a different opinion

Of course.  What you say is your opinion, and what I said is my opinion.  Did I tell you what you can or can't say?  No.  It is just a discussion.  So your response is surprising to me.

It is the first time I hear that there is a minimum of games required. Counter-examples are many. In fact most of fairy pieces have been named by problemists on their very first use.

This response is also very odd.  Maybe we are talking about different things.  If you want to use these pieces in your game, name them whatever you want.  It seems to me you are saying that they should have universal names.  That is something very different.  And yes, you can have whatever opinion you want about that also, but do not be surprised when people disagree with you.  On multiple occasions, you have become very opinionated about how other people have chosen to name pieces in their games.

I do think they are worth of special attention, again is my opinion. I respect yours, respect mine.

Yes, I do.  I thought we all were having a discussion here.  Apparently, in your mind, something else is going on. Did I say someting intolerant or disrespectful?

Hopefully one has still the right to have a different opinion. It is the first time I hear that there is a minimum of games required. Counter-examples are many. In fact most of fairy pieces have been named by problemists on their very first use.

I don't think either that naming 3 pieces is an attempt to name the infinite number of possible chess variant pieces. Your comparison is an exaggeration.

I do think they are worth of special attention, again is my opinion. I respect yours, respect mine.

I am not in favor of attempting any "standard" names for ski pieces unless they prove themselves to be popular. Right now, how many games have any of these pieces? Two? So I think a prefix is far more appropriate than trying to find new "standard" names for three new pieces. There are an almost infinite number of possible chess variant pieces, most of which are not worth using in most games. If you attempt to name them all, you end up with Man & Beast. Why are these pieces worth of special attention? They have not proven themselves with any popularity whatsoever.

@ J-L: Re: the Internet-speak (English abbreviations):

iirc = if I recall correctly;

Fwiw = For what it's worth.

Thanks @Daniel for the links.

I fully feel like you: It's quickly hard for me to read those Man & Beast pages, too dense, broken diagrams (which I don't find diverting).

I also think the jumping ability of the 3 ski-pieces makes a big difference. Skica looks to me as a very good game to test them.

This is why I'm convinced that they deserve to have a name of their own and not being simply prefixed avatars. Nor named with the volapukian manner found in the Man & Beast pages.

Fwiw?

iirc?

At least for the Knight case I'd tend towards yes, with a qualifier for Leaping and (the small variety of) non‐leaping versions (a mao might be Chinese‐style, or orthogonal‐first, for ex.; the moa diagonal‐first, and their compound the ‘moo’ two‐path (or perhaps, following Gilman, Flexi‐path?)). Again, both elephants/dabbabas and Chinese/Korean Cannons (the latter of which arguably differ yet more fundamentally) are usually referred to this way, and the only naturally‐occurring mao is cognate to the leaping knight

As for the leaping Rook (iirc it exists in Ramayana Chess as the Buddha)… quite possibly too; it's renamed in that game most obviously because all the names are themed, and since none of the pieces are blockable it's as easily just a rule difference as a fundamentally distinct piece. At least Gilman took the same attitude for Dabbabantes and their ilk

The main exception for me is if the two are present in the same game, in which case different atomic names start to make sense (indeed even for pieces that move identically but have different behaviours outside that, e.g. promotion or royalty); and indeed while they might feel quite different to play with, it'd seem odd imo to have an array with both leaping and non‐leaping ski‐bishops, or early‐ and late‐turning manticores. Ultimately it's probably really a matter of not arbitrarily proliferating unrelated names for uncommon pieces with more (imo) similarities than differences

And yeah, M&B took me several reads before I got to the point of more‐or‐less understanding (especially since there's plenty of stuff in there that's more interesting than the reams of names), and the broken diagrams are at best distracting

That link is not in the Skica page and is not in the Alphabetical Index.

I've added a link to the preset in the Notes section. There's already a submission to include it in the index, which hasn't been accepted yet.

Fwiw, I tend to agree with Gilman's conflation of jumping ski‐bishop with Tamerlane's non‐jumping Talia/Vanguard/Scout/Picket (he selects the latter term), on the grounds that they reach the same squares, like leaping and non‐leaping elephants

In that case, would you also want to use the same term for Knight, Mao, and Moa? What about 'Rook' for a piece that leaps to any square on the same rank or file? I think the jumping ability makes a big difference in how the piece feels to play with. I wish I could understand more of those Man and Beast articles. They quickly get hard to follow due to the dense paragraphs and broken diagrams.

Ski‐ is a nice prefix for general use (though compared to Grant Acedrex's Ski‑manticore, the Tiger Chess astrologer is perhaps less obvious as a ski‐ piece since it arguably jumps over two squares — in the same way the osprey is arguably a ski‑‘2.manticore’, to use Aurelian's term for lack of anything better), but it does make sense imo to have separate words for the simplest ski‐ pieces; Bicycle/‐reme/‐plane are nice enough in that they extrapolate easily for longer initial leaps (tricycle, pentareme, ⁊c., practical utility aside).

Fwiw, I tend to agree with Gilman's conflation of jumping ski‐bishop with Tamerlane's non‐jumping Talia/Vanguard/Scout/Picket (he selects the latter term), on the grounds that they reach the same squares, like leaping and non‐leaping elephants; the leaping is then distinguished by a prefixed word (that said, I would tend to similiarly conflate normal and contra‐gryphons and Renn cavaliers for the same reason, so I suppose that can be taken with a pinch of salt given general tastes here). Fwiw he also has an ‘‐on’ suffix for extending a radial leap into a subsequent slide (such that ski‐bishop/picket ≡ ‘elephon’, ‘trilbon’ ≡ notional ‘tri‐plane’, and things like Sowons (per Long‐Nosed Generals) are possible) — though he doesn't touch oblique‐starting pieces.

As regards atomic names, his ski‐queen ≡ Fagin avoids clashing initials, albeit being a bit of a specific reference; Picket and Pocket (≡ ski‐bishop/‐rook) have no such luck, though Picket is always substitutable as above (and both T and V are relatively uncommon initials for CV pieces) (and also, Bat does in fact have a prior usage, as does Quetzal)

Thanks. That link is not in the Skica page and is not in the Alphabetical Index. (And in the Alphabetical Index there is no shortcut for Sk).

Have you made a GC to play this game?

Yes, here it is.

Have you made a GC to play this game?

The idea behind 'bi' is that the piece jumps to the 2nd square before sliding. I still like 'ski' for describing such pieces because it's more general. You could describe the Tiger Chess astrologer as a ski-osprey, for example.

For represeting these pieces, I've been thinking of something like this gryphon.

The central X could be replaced with a small dabbabah/alfil/knight/whatever to indicate the first stage of the move, while the rooks or bishops in the corners show the second stage. That might not work so well for the ski-queen though.

Well, it is always a dilemma whether the piece icons should hint at their name or hint at their move. For playing a variant there is really no need for knowing the names of the pieces at all. You must associate images with moves. So this is why I prefer the second method. Especially since names in chess variants are not standardized at all, and pieces of the same name can have totally different moves in other variants. So no matter what the name of the piece was, if it moves similar to a Bishop, I would represent by an image that looks like a Bishop. Even when it was called a Bicycle or a Bat. E.g. the diagram in the Elven Chess article uses the images for Crowned Bishop, Crowned Rook and Lion for the Elf, Goblin and Warlock. The diagrams for Sac Chess in your book do the same for Missionary and Sailor.

Bicyle, Bireme, Biplane: Daniel, the use of "bi" as a kind of prefix is bizarre for me in this context. "Bi" evokes the notion of twice or double, which is not present. I even prefer "ski" because it may me think of skipping. Anyway, having the 3 starting with the same letter if not the best imo.

"This makes an easy mnemonics for the names, but is a bit catastrophic for the move notation and other places where a piece has to be identified by a single-letter ID. "

Isn't "catastrophic" a bit negative comment here? Lets's be constructive among us. There are only 26 letters in our alphabet, we have to deal with this kind of issue always. If you use Ski-Rook, Ski-Queen, Ski-Bishop, the 3 of them start with S which is not better anyway.

"And I wonder how much the mnemonic is worth; these are only helpful if you already know the names, but are not sure which name belongs to which piece. "

I don't understand what you mean. Imagine I discover Skica. I know it has the 3 new pieces. OK, this one is the Bat, this I can see because the icon of the Bat will not look like anything else. Bat -> it is a kind of lame Bishop, not a lame Rook or Queen. I don't see what is not clear here.

"But most people would not even be aware that pieces of this type exist at all."

Most people know nothing about the fauna of CV anyway. If they come here, I guess they are ready to know that we play with fairy pieces. I probably miss the point.

One remark: you made the starting letter of each of these equal to that of the normal slider moving in the same direction (B, R, Q). This makes an easy mnemonics for the names, but is a bit catastrophic for the move notation and other places where a piece has to be identified by a single-letter ID. And I wonder how much the mnemonic is worth; these are only helpful if you already know the names, but are not sure which name belongs to which piece. But most people would not even be aware that pieces of this type exist at all.

I try to propose something. These 3 pieces are somehow flying, at least I see them like this. And I agree with HG, they belong to the special category of compound pieces doing this-then-that. I propose 3 names, not used in other CV (with a small note on one of them), and which start with an initial letter reminding of their parent in the pure riders' world.

Quetzal for (A?B)(D?R)

Raven for (D?R), with another semantic link with the bird rook

Bat for (A?B)

The 3 are fling, different enough to be drawn as recognisable icons easily.

They fit with a family where are already Osprey, Ostrich or Condor, Pegasus, Eagle or Gryphon. (The use of Raven has been reported for RNN but the RNN is better known as Waran or Varan, which put the syllabes in the other order.)

That could be my proposal.

Richard Milner suggested to me the names Bicycle (ski-bishop) Bireme (ski-rook) and Biplane (ski-queen) for these pieces.

'Ski-piece' is more a generic descriptive prefix for how the piece moves. Like one uses 'crowned' for pieces that also move like King ('Crowned Bishop for the Dragon Horse) and 'mounted' or 'knighted' for pieces that also move like a Knight.

I suppose the association with skiing mainly comes from the sport of ski jumping, where they first slide from a ramp to jump as far downhill as they can, before sliding further downhill. One finds similar behavior in the sport of motocross or BMX cycling. So one of these pieces could be called a Crosser.

In fact the ski-pieces are very similar in character to the bent riders: the first step of their trajectory is a different one than the rest of the slide. But the difference only manifests itself in the length of the step, while the bent sliders also change the direction. Especially Osprey and Ostrich are similar, as their first step is also A or D, and the following steps F or W. The Ski-Bishop could be described as A-then-B.

All these pieces are capable of launching 'sneak attacks' on the more conventional pieces. Bent riders attack from around a corner, and the ski-pieces from behind and obstacle.  'Highwayman' seems an apt name for that behavior.

I agree these pieces are very interesting. I prefer them to some "bent-hopper-riders" like the Osprey, Ostrich, etc. In my opinion they should deserve better names than Ski-something. (Skiing is not obviously connected to the idea of hopping for me, sorry, I'm a very good skier!) Maybe we should open a competition for the best proposal. Who's want to start?