[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Single Comment
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0ee83/0ee83351b0eb4299489965417318bf09fee6666e" alt="An article on pieces"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0bfb8/0bfb80f47fd669e09d6a4b7a3d5679e2b857cd8f" alt="Unverified Commentor"
Having studied these ideas offline, I can see your 'simple' diagonal-pattern pieces for the compounds that they are. In cubic-cell geometry, all the orthogionals are the same angle to each other; the diagonals are not. Turning between the move of two steps diagonally and that of 1 differs immensely depending on whether the turn is through 90°, 120°, or 60°. The first is indeed the dual of the usual Knight's move, and so a piece with such moves is indeed a Camel. The second is the dual of the move defining a hex Knight in Glinsky terminology, and the third that of the move defining a hex Knight in Wellisch terminology (which Glinsky would presumably consisder a Ferz). Would you consider the 'true' hex Knight (if such a thing exists!) the piece combining the moves of both hex pieces?