darth_ender

No, a gold cannon moves like a rook (or in this game, a reverse chariot), but captures by jumping.  Think about your move.  Any other move would have just sacrificed my lance.  At least your king can't move for now, but I'm still worried about what to do.  I don't think I could have made a better move without sacrificing something.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I haven't had time to analyze the board much.  I'm shooting from the hip most of the time.

HHx29+N

Yeah, I've got you pinned in, but I can't promise I'll mate you before you mate me.

L*28#

Oh, now I see.  Yes, I will keep my original move, and I will now play Ph*24.

I mean HHx29+N.

I probably won't be able to make another play till I get home, so this will likely be my last move for a few hours.  But you never know.  Maybe I can sneak in another move at some point.

Thanks for setting me straight.  It's hard to pay attention to all the details while at work.

HHx29

I figured this was the case.  No worries.  I don't have access to my game at the present, but I'll continue when I get home.

RicOlie_2 said:

HH*3f

 I assume you just mean 3? If so, HH*26

To make sure our boards are the same:

k
-
-
rs
ph
-
-
-
-
-
-
rc
s
p
-
-
-
GB
SC
-
-
g
-
-
-
-
-
-
RS
K

Ric in hand:
N/HH
SC/GC

ender in hand:
n/hh
l/rc

Does that look right to you?

Thank you.  Lx12+RC

Sx22

I did forget, but that is okay.  I don't want to take it back.  It's interesting, I might lose my first round of the game I invented :(

Actually, in all honesty, I'm proud of you and how perceptive you are being.  My pride isn't hurt.  If anything, you are showing how well the game can be played.  I hope I can match and pull out a victory.  S*20

HHx18+N

Wow, I'm impressed by the sneakiness of your move.  This is what I was wondering if it was possible: can clever combinations be pulled off on a 1D board?  I think you are demonstrating that yes, they can.

Gsx5

Gs-7

Warm, high of 77, getting up to the mid-80s by Saturday :(

Lame winter!

Since you can drop pieces with either face up, I suggest you actually drop your heavenly horse instead of your knight.  It might be a moot point, but it would have given you more flexibility.  If you wish, I can assume you did drop it as such.

Meanwhile, rs-4

RicOlie_2 said:

Thanks, but I've read it already. :) Maybe I'm asking a non-question, or maybe I just wasn't clear enough, but what I'm asking is if Joseph Smith used the more regularly used English words for things like "Jew" and "Christ" which wouldn't have been the literal translations of the text, why use the literal translation of the text to describe New World animals (e.g. bison) instead of using the normal English word? If he was translating under divine inspiration, it shouldn't have mattered whether or not the word literally meant "ox" or "bison" as one would think God, or the angel Moroni, or whoever was helping him out would prompt him to translate it as "bison" if it was used to refer to a bison, or "ox" if it was used to refer to an ox. Does that make sense? Why be non-literal with some words or phrases, but use confusing literal translations for others?

 That is a good question.  First, the geography of the Book of Mormon is unknown.  As such, we cannot discern which animals are being discussed.  Are they tapirs?  Are they bison?  We don't really know.  It's all just speculation.  What's more, the correctness of the Book of Mormon is not and should not be interpreted to mean every single word is exactly what we we would understand.  When it discusses cattle, we don't know what is being discussed, and that doesn't matter.  Remember that Joseph Smith was an uneducated farmboy.  In reality many wonder how he could have even concocted such a book with so little education.  His knowledge of the fauna of the Americas was limited.  God wouldn't necessarily supply him with all new words he didn't know.  God was working with the limited mind of one of his creations.  Joseph dictated the word that his mind could comprehend when he came across whatever animals, plants, or whatever we are discussing.

That said, how can this be the most correct book?  In doctrine, in teaching the correctness of the gospel.  We claim that the Book of Mormon teaches even more clearly than the Bible that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of mankind, and its exposition on his Atonement is clearer and superior to any other book.  That is what we teach.

Gs-9

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Anachronisms/Animals

SC-12

I see what you are saying.  I think perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the perfection of the translation.  For instance, I am assisting with the translation of the Dejarik rules.  Bewy translated things very literally at times.  I am trying to make it more accessible to an English reader.  If it's truly "faithful," does that preclude the use of words and phrases that would be understandable to a modern English reader?  I think not.  Even the NAB has to make such "compromises" for the sake of clarity.  Let me give another example.  In Spanish, the word for dream is "sueno' (with a ~ over the n).  If I'm sleepy, I say, "Tengo sueno," which literally means, "I have a dream."  If I were to translate a Spanish book faithfully, does that mean I have to translate this phrase so it sounds like Martin Luther King, Jr. speaking?  Or would it be better to translate it as, "I'm sleepy"?

I am sure there are other anachronisms you may come across, many far more confusing than the use of the term "Jew."  For instance, in 2 Nephi the title "Christ" is used for the first time, which is the Greek word for "anointed."  But they are speaking Hebrew or a similar dialect.  Confusing, right?  Well, if you want an answer to that, I can discuss it further, but I'm definitely pretty busy today.  In any case, for a history of the word Jew, look at this wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

The term "Jew" technically didn't even come around till English existed.  But if we look at the etymology of the word, there are several synonyms in different languages, and other words mean exactly the same thing: of the Tribe of Judah.

Wish I had more time.

S-13

See, that's kind of what I was wondering.  I personally really enjoyed the WEG sourcebooks and thought that, while EU, were very faithful to the spirit of the OT.  I really loved them.  Much of their info is considered outdated today, particularly with the sized of things like the Death Stars and Executor.  Nevertheless, they are wonderful reads.

I'm not sure of your question.  I loved the West End Games sourcesbooks as a kid and still have several of them.  But I'm not sure what you are asking when you wonder which have originaltrilogy knowledge.  Do you mind clarifying

And sorry, I never actually have played the RPG.  I just loved the books for the immense and interesting lore.