Single Comment

Average 6 out of 10. Good examples from actual game positions with a sense of having played it. How does the Flying Bomber relate to Wayne Schmittberger's Airplane from year 1981, the apparent precedent for this offshoot? Probably a hundred or a thousand combinations of differing modalities are conceiveable for the general idea of a new 'flying piece'. How? Just by varying the number of empty spaces, and whether both side's pieces may be flown over, and whether following Bishop lines, Rook lines or both; or wilder multiple captures. Besides Rook mentioned, it would be interesting to hear basic comparison to simple Cannon. In general, authors should do this, not leaving comparisons to players or reviewers. What class of piece is this? Not multi-path, not leaper, not rider. For starters, it is a combination piece. As for the second leg of the combination or 'piece within a piece', two or even three distinct modalities are really not so uncommon. Some are found in Havel's Jester Chess (1999), Mad Chess (2000), Insect Chess (2001), and Kung Fu(2001). The standard move(long-range) is piece enough different from Schmittberger's to warrant this write-up, and the second modality(short-range) added may very well be an improvement after that first spin-off. But it is not clear how over-all Flying Bombers would be a betterment of Schmittberger's, whence it came whether or not all unawares. The Flying Bomber is placed more or less where Omega Chess puts new pieces thus preserving a trace of Orthodoxy to the inside. Nothing wrong with this Rules Set, maturely offering variations, but extending somewhat prolix for just the one new piece not so unique. Other CVs of budding prolificist Charles Daniel look better.