[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
There is a different piece with this name which is used in a game: the Kangaroo of Outback Chess, which combines the moves of the leaping Elephant (Alfil) and the Knight. This is in keeping with beastly names for beastly compounds (cf Bison, Gazelle, Gnu) and the piece was introduced by Timothy Newton, who as an Australian might be more familiar with real-life kangaroos than Almay. On the other hand, Almay's Kangaroo is far older. So which piece has the better claim to the name in future variants?
Correction to my previous comment: Timothy Newton is not Australian, just thorough enough in his research to give that impression. I also mistook his stereotyped opening to Outback Chess for a sign of the self-mocking irony that the Australians share with the British. I discovered my error in the interview with him as 84-square winner. Apologies to him if he is offended, but hopefully he will instead feel flattered for writing so convincing a themed game. To sum up the remaining claims of the Almay and Newton Kangaroos: Almay: age, very impressive leap. Newton: used in a game and a pzize-winning game at that, maintains beast-name convention of Gnu/Gazelle/Bison.
As I've said before Chess problems aren't Chess and Fairy Chess problems aren't Chess Variants--problemists have there own language and very often their own piece names. In my book, Timothy Newton deserves the honors.
3 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.