Will it ever end ? The argumentation contiues

[Evis Perdikou]

Frontally worn miters et al ...

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8034">http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8034</a><!-- m -->

[Patrick McGovern]

;|

?

[Geoff Chandler]

I'm coming back in from a new angle.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread.php?blogpostid=98">http://www.redhotpawn.com/blog/blogread ... gpostid=98</a><!-- m -->

[Patrick McGovern]

from where? =|

[Geoff Chandler]

Follow the link.

I've had emails and arguments with all of these guys mentioned on ChessBorg.
Some of them have fantastic names, at first I thought I was getting hit by dyslexic spammers.

At no prompting what so ever I've changed my mind.

They can be chess pieces but the Bishop was carved as a Rook.

This explains why there is no mention of a Bishop in chess till the Spaniards
put one on the board in the early 1500's. The Bishop was a Rook.

IN 1831 the lads saw a Bishop and placed it on the Bishop's square.
It's obviously a Rook.

I'll change my mind again in another 10 years.
(By then I will have worked out my Roman gladiator theory. Maximus Euveus carved them in between fights.)

Still not one iota of proof the things came from Lewis.
Lots of evidence to suggest they did not.

[Graham Kerr]

hey Evis, are you still playing?