From: Jonathan Tisdall <jtisdall <at> C2I <dot> NET>
Date: 16 mar 2001
Subject: Re: About the name of the pieces

I think you will find that there are less manners in the rest of the world :-)

And while it seems like little to ask to just call the pieces what they are
called - very little indeed - if it makes it easier for people to start playing
by not worrying about the names until later, then I would rather get them
started.

jt



On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:12:31 +0900, Dick Iwakura wrote:
>Hi, I completely agree with the opinion of Ito san in Bangkok.
>
>Please don't call the name of piece such as Keima as Horse,
>Ryu as Dragon, Uma as Promoted Bishop etc. which, almost of
>Japanese shogi lovers will sure strongly reject to be called
>so.
>We always respect the culture of the other county, so that,
>when we play Chinese Xianqi, we never call a Ma in Xianqi as
>Keima. Ma is Ma, not Keima, not Knight.
>This is basic and essential manner for the people.
>
>Dick
>
>
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:51:14 +0700
>Chiaki Ito <shogi <at> MAIL <dot> COM> wrote:
>
>>Cant you just use Japanese names only? It may be a bit hard in the
>>beginning for non-Japanese, but it will be easier without any confusion for
>>the rest of your life!
>>
>>I dont call a Queen in Chess as Jyou Ou!
>>
>>Chiaki
>>
>>At 13:02 01/03/15 +0100, you wrote:
>>>In the discussion about handicap games there have been some differences
>>>in naming the pieces.
>>>The standard english nomenclature is Silver, Pawn, Rook etc. These names
>>>come from the chess tradition.
>>>It is possible to use the japanese names ginsho (gin), fuhyo (fu) etc
>>>If these names are translated we don't get the standard english names.
>>>Therefore a third way of naming
>>>the pieces is possible i.e. silver, footsoldier, chariot etc.
>>>In Sweden we have another problem: which piece is the horse is it the
>>>horse or is it the knight.
>>>Is it possible to have one name for each piece or do we have to live
>>>with these many different conventions?
>>>
>>>Rikard Nordgren