Single Comment

Here are several hundred more from an earlier generation's try (1998 article) for recent threads 'Multiform' and 'FatallyFlawed' and also 'Complementarity' and 'ShortRange Project'. Figure about half these would ShortRange-qualify, and when we called it 'The Deranged Project' to JGood last year, hey were just kidding, because in fact are, and further intending to contribute. With our tentative best alternative to RN and BN as (R,Mao) and (B,Moa) instead, seriously thinking they are superior, we need the right evaluative criteria. Recently some have used the old cliche, 'Have you played it?' That was popular around 2001 or 2002, and had died out after Michael Howe averred that a trained observer can tell how a game plays just perusing the Rules. Case closed, tacit agreement came because, of course, it is impossible to do justice playing 10,000 different Chesses. My corroborating Comment in 2004 was that a good game surely warrants 10 days(hour a day), and multiply 10 days by 4000 CVs, and that 40,000 days have been reached by only maybe 1,000-10,000 out of the total 100 billion humans that ever lived. So, realistically, who can conceivably keep up? This List does not define all its pieces but they can be found. In a random sample, letter K, letter T, we know about half of them right away and where to go for about half more, so 'List of Fairy Pieces' 75% comprehensible. Which are only fanciful? Or are some more important than others? It seems incumbent to develop systematic judging by principles other than playing. Excuse this Comment's mixing together in the general idea mere pieces and actual full-fledged CVs, there being some rough comparability if only in the utter lack of limit to inventiveness. [Also, later noticing that Truelove's own Comment says all pieces in this particular list are from DP's 1994 ECV]