Single Comment

Editor Quintanilla tags an 'Excellent' on Falcon in 2007, after Jeremy Good asked, because of both having played it. Thanks, Tony. Suppose even Editor Aronson refused to Rate Falcon on Jeremy Good's request, after Aronson calls Falcon *COMPLEMENT* of Rook, Knight, and Bishop in Complete Permutation Chess. That's okay, because Peter Aronson himself has not received due for CPC yet either. Incredible that there could be a mathematical complement, carrying characteristics of all of them! (We have to be cheerleaders without Good anymore) The problem comes from improper insruction of OrthoChess. Kids are not taught that Rook, Knight, and Bishop mutually complement each other. What does such mathematical concept mean here? Briefly, mutually exclusive squares, mutually interacting different moves, and completion of the field. Yet revolt against existence of that attribute is understandable when people and players have stake in hiding the underlying coherence. The reason arises from Chess' not being pure Science but also Art, Sport, and Life pastime, including all the material aspect. When I personally handed Yasser Seirawan Falcon material October 1998 at Denver national championship, I saw looks after some GMs looked it over of bemusement and scepticism, but none of the selfish scorn to be read intuitively across these impersonal electronics. I wonder what Seraiwan thinks today about Chess reform: don't put much stock in Seraiwan Chess itself, about which they are not really serious.