Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
Or: Why Journalists Need to Know Their Subjects Well.
Read this badly-researched article. The author claims that Lewis Chessmen aren't Chessmen but Hnefatafl pieces, using blatantly erroneous argumentation (in the theory part of the article, at least, but when he makes such mistakes about theoretical facts, can you trust him to get the practical details right)?
The theory of the article is full of holes.
1. Hnefatafl uses a distinct board too, so the “where’s the chessboard?” question is moot.
2. Hnefatafl uses only a single King and similar Rook-like moving pieces for both sides. The diversity of Lewis pieces is clearly bigger then that.
3. The “bishops did not appear before 15th century” statement is a misinterpretation of truth. The bishops did not acquire their current long-range diagonal move before 15th century, true, but that’s not the same as “they didn’t exist before”. 15th century changed the move of an existing piece, it didn’t introduce a new one. I repeat: chess of that time did have their Bishops, they only moved unlike their modern namesakes.
Also I need to comment on that gem:
“The BM has relegated it to the smallest piece on the board - a case of making the piece fit the theory.”
In many modern Staunton chess sets the Rooks are the smallest pieces on the board, despite them being second powerful pieces in modern chess. But the author clearly lacks knowledge about his subject to understand it.
The moral of the story is: don't blindly believe what the press tells you
.
Read this badly-researched article. The author claims that Lewis Chessmen aren't Chessmen but Hnefatafl pieces, using blatantly erroneous argumentation (in the theory part of the article, at least, but when he makes such mistakes about theoretical facts, can you trust him to get the practical details right)?
The theory of the article is full of holes.
1. Hnefatafl uses a distinct board too, so the “where’s the chessboard?” question is moot.
2. Hnefatafl uses only a single King and similar Rook-like moving pieces for both sides. The diversity of Lewis pieces is clearly bigger then that.
3. The “bishops did not appear before 15th century” statement is a misinterpretation of truth. The bishops did not acquire their current long-range diagonal move before 15th century, true, but that’s not the same as “they didn’t exist before”. 15th century changed the move of an existing piece, it didn’t introduce a new one. I repeat: chess of that time did have their Bishops, they only moved unlike their modern namesakes.
Also I need to comment on that gem:
“The BM has relegated it to the smallest piece on the board - a case of making the piece fit the theory.”
In many modern Staunton chess sets the Rooks are the smallest pieces on the board, despite them being second powerful pieces in modern chess. But the author clearly lacks knowledge about his subject to understand it.
The moral of the story is: don't blindly believe what the press tells you
.
