Comments by Bn Em

Aand you've rederived these pieces as a back‐formation ;‌) These are the original (long‐ and short‐, respectively) non‐helical switchback rhinos as proposed by Gilman (and independently by KelvinFox).

Actually never mind, these are two of Gilman's four: Long‐switchback Rhino and Short‐switchback Mirror Rhino. The other two move the same but with the non‐alternating step first.

Note incidentally that Gilman's ‘rhino’ is this one (specifically the sliding version), not the (modified) GA one as popularised by Jean‐Louis (hence why both forms are referred to by that name). The fact that both begin W‐then‐F is coïncidence

Also (belated) Happy Birthday :‌)

Apologies, I'd meant to publish the Accelerated games alongside the regular(?) ones but apparently neglected to actually hit the update button.

That said, the links in particular are a welcome addition which arguably the other pages would benefit from too if you're not too averse to adding them

I did notice some 3 English 'words' in 1 that are nouns that Gilman coined, especially in his second section with words beginning with C (towards the end of that section).

You mean the likes of ‘Coviewingspot’/‘Cowingnut’/‘Coworkload’? Maybe I'm counting differently (I wouldn't tend to count prefixes like ‘co‐’ which are part of most names on that page specifically, otherwise ‘Antidisestablishmentarianism’ (at least 6 segments — and in fact a noun!) would carry precedent; hence I wouldn't really consider ‘counterclockwise’ an example either) but I still only consider those two‐part compounds at heart. Which leaves the likes of ‘Coupandup’ which might be the only true 3‐part compound (plus suffix for 4) on the page as far as I could tell, but still isn't really a noun as such. And really shows the desperation of finding unique names for such a wide range of pieces (and in particular the many possible 3D leaper compounds which are unlikely to see practical use)

Please let me know sooner or later if I should do name editing all the same

If you've since found a name you like acceptably well in comparison to WMW that'd probably be best; if you still strongly prefer WMW I'll leave it at that and publish at least those four (and the others, failing some other major oversight)

My interpretation was that the forward‐only thing was just a pragmatic way of ensuring offensive play, sort of like a primitive cousin of the jeu forcé. Much in the same way as Draughts/Checkers has FO pieces.

with D2 rather than D7 that rises to 159

@Kevin:

I'd missed/forgotten that particular objection to Wazaba/Wazbaba, and I do agree that if you don't like it then you ought to be free to not use it (though my search for the ⟨Wazaba⟩ form did turn up your own 4 Kings Quasi-Shatranj, for what it's worth). Though for what it's worth, alternative piece names for Orthochess pieces rarely become less idiomatic English, and as H.G. notes it's not the proliferation of names as such that's the issue here

I think there were only four games (the four I left, for now, unpublished: Accelerated and Unaccelerated Constabulary/‐ble Chess/‐spiel) using this name, and only once each; the WMW Chess/‐spiel setting files are of course more unfortunate OK never mind, I forgot about WIP's, but even there besides the WMW games the only other usage seems to be in Bureau‐Spiel, so only 5 mentions total excluding eponymous games

I'm fairly sure the sometimes awkward names of some more obscure pieces are part of what turned people off M&B (though even then, under C I only spot Canvalander, Cardirider/‐lander/‐runner (of which the first as Cardinalrider is relatively uncontroversial), a couple of Camel‐ pieces (all relatively obscure), and Cbehemoth/Cbuffoon/Cmutilator for (cool but almost wilfully awfully‐named) Brook‐style pieces — more than average, sure, but he names more pieces at all than average and most of these are fairly obscure, used only by himself if at all). The criticism applies validly there too (with different mitigating factors)

Most 3‐word compounds in English (‘whatsoëver’, ‘notwithstanding’, ‘albeit’, ‘inasmuch’, ⁊c.) tend not to be nouns ;‌) Or much of anything except moderately obscure grammatical particles. And nor is it a productive way of producing new words; they're all lexical fossils of sorts

In any case I personally won't insist too hard on the name; it's clunky, and in apparently the majority opinion unnecessarily so, but you seem to be very keen to keep it for whatever reason and ultimately the freedom to pick names (at least up to generating confusion) does stand

@H.G.:

Wazbaba is Gilman's spelling; I'd never noticed that most others uses lack the first b (and had thus assumed Haru's was a typo). As a wazir–dabbaba portmanteau I definitely prefer it with both ⟨b⟩s myself

@Bob:

Whilst I'm not as hardline as Jean‐Louis regarding ‘Aanca’ (for better or worse, it did build up a small history of use for W‐then‐B and imo at least in the context of variants from that time retains a little validity), I fail to see the wisdom in compounding the confusion (especially with an already‐controversial name) by assigning it to yet a third (especially so closely‐related) piece. If not ‘Godzilla’ for Gryphon+Rhino, there's always Gilmanese ‘Gorgon’ (used also by Frolov)

@Jean‐Louis:

I think Betza's error in Bent Sliders was not so much one of interpretation as one of judgment ;‌) He knew perfectly well it was “Spanish for [the piece with English name] Gryphon”

Reading over this again, I have to agree Warmachinewazir still sticks out as an incredibly clunky name; since you already have Ferfil for the piece whose image is named Elephantferz, why not the corresponding (albeit apparently thus far confined to Gilman) Wazbaba?

I'm thinking that this is because there is not a lot of experience in games with jokers.

At least in my case that's very much the reason; in principle the dicussion is very interesting (especially since a game I've been thinking about would involve a closely‐related, if potentially even more powerful (though less apparently‐random) piece)

My impression is that jokers are a bit like Querquisites and Smess/Ivory‐Tower pieces, in that they depart substantially enough from normal Chess dynamics that they'd take a good bit of learning to handle. And in their particular case, the art of dealing with them is in part (principally?) the fact that they reduce the value of strong pieces, especially if well placed: you can't freely move the queen if there's a joker ready to copy its move while still being worth (on average, presumed — though of course this ‘chilling’ effect increases its value correspondingly to the powerful pieces on the board) less.

I'd be interested to see how Jokers handle in games with (a small number of) really powerful pieces. I'd almost predict that capturing the jokers to free the power pieces (with maybe some judicious moves by the latter in between either while the J is still hidden in the setup position, or to give check) would be an important middle‐game theme.

But in any case for now you're probably one of the people here with most experience with the J :‌)

It could have been made clearer, but it's not so difficult to find: locusts spawn in the square vacated by a moving king, or result from the demotion of a capturing Leo

I think the use of ‘leaping’ where the other pawns simply ‘move’ suggests that they do, in fact, leap (making your diagram accurate)

One last detail: traditionally what you've put under Movement in the rules section is what the Pieces section is intended for. Whether you want to append it to that section as is or interleave it with the images is up to you.

Once that's done, this looks otherwise ready for publication