[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Donkey Chess. Grand Chess with Donkeys instead of Knights. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] M Winther wrote on 2007-05-20 UTCWell, I for one, hold the donkey in even higher regard than the horse. (By the way, I have, once again updated my zrf:s of Gorgona and Pyrrhus Chess. They are now much stronger. The paralysing capacity is very curious.) /Mats Graeme Neatham wrote on 2007-05-20 UTC I grant you that the donkey may have certain strengths when compared to a horse: sure-footedness; endurance; intelligence; but not swiftness. However, I find it impossible to imagine a donkey being capable of standing, let alone moving, if asked to carry a fully armoured knight weighing 200 pounds or more. Even the horse was unequal to the task, leading to the breeding of the great horse or destrier for use by knights in battle or tourney. M Winther wrote on 2007-05-20 UTCThis is not off-topic. It's interesting to discuss the naming of pieces. Funk & Wagnall's encyclopedia says about the donkey that it '...is more surefooted than the horse, which makes it better on mountain trails. It also lives longer than the horse, generally from 25 to 50 years. The wild ass runs so swiftly that it is difficult to overtake on the open plains [...] Small donkeys, or burros, played a major role as pack animals in opening up the western U.S. Although regarded as stubborn and stupid, the donkey, if well treated, is an intelligent and enduring pack animal.' So it depends on what aspects you highlight whether it's stronger than a horse. It is clearly more tenacious and enduring than a horse, more swift and sure-footed. /Mats Graeme Neatham wrote on 2007-05-20 UTC ...The donkey *is* actually stronger than a knight, and therefore the name is proper, I think... Sorry for being slightly off-topic, and I may be missing the point entirely (I often do), but I fail to see why the term donkey would be suitable for a piece stronger than a knight. The term carries overtones of stupidity, and the actual animal is surely weaker than a knight's war-horse? From an ancient warfare standpoint a better name might be Cataphract; or from a modern military standpoint perhaps Tank? M Winther wrote on 2007-05-19 UTCThis is an ambitious chess variant, with the new 'super-donkeys', too. The donkey *is* actually stronger than a knight, and therefore the name is proper, I think. I would prefer that my name is not spelled out in full: M. Winther is good enough. It makes me embarrased to see my name everywhere. I understand people who use a pen-name, but I don't want to do that. Moreover, I found out that I did a miserable programming job on the two interesting variants where pieces can be paralysed. They are now much stronger, and a bug was fixed in Gorgona Chess. Pyrrhus Chess Gorgona Chess /Mats David Paulowich wrote on 2007-05-19 UTCThe comment by Mats Winther can be found HERE. Many (more powerful) 2-step Knights have been invented: Lim Ther Peng's Dinosaur has no limitations on capture(s) - or even the direction(s) of its movement. 6 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.