Spot on. Of course, chess itself serves these things just as well, in
just as ambiguous a fashion. Should I mention Occam again?
>In the bead game, the arrangement is even
>less structured than in chess.
Nope, the game must be left alone.
>So, I was suggesting that the pieces could be renamed...
No, no, a thousand times no. I realize this is one of your, and others,
favorite pastimes, but the names (the <names>?) must remain. Now- at the
same time- a marvelous happenstance in modern chess play has been the
simplification of move notation, so that instead of the cumbersome K-QB4,
or whatever, we now have E4-F5, and the names are lost, or at least made
ancillary. Is this important? You bet it is....
>But aside from rules and structure, of course there is still the
>shape of the pieces to consider.
Yes, that is the project, should anyone be willing to undertake it.
Remember as well, that most chess sets, although minimally only the
pieces, can also include the playing surface.
*****************
Wade T. Smith
morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
morbius@cyberwarped.com |
******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******