Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
The following terms struck me as uncommon, and on checking, I have not found them used:
- air squares
- capture leap
- CVPhile
- distant square
- finite mover
- heraldic piece
- infinite mover
- leap passively
- leap square
- line move
These have been used very little:
- capture zone is used in Outer Space Chess, where it is defined as " the set of squares on which a piece could potentially capture another, were it to be there."
- counter. While the word appears on numerous pages, I did not find any using it to mean a physical object used as a Chess piece, and it was sometimes used to mean another object used in conjunction with a Chess piece to alter its attributes or identity.
- custodial capture is used in Minima and Latrunculi XXI.
- cycle. While used in English Progressive Chess, as mentioned in the entry, I did not find any other game using it in the same sense.
- leap to capture is used once in Leap Chess, though apparently with a less strict meaning.
- line piece is used in Omega Chess and Grander Chess.
- marker is more commonly used to mean some object on the board besides a Chess piece. Same problem as counter.
These are terms I personally consider unconventional and do not use:
- array (I favor setup or initial setup)
- cell (I favor space)
I'm going to take a break now and continue this later.
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, May 1, 2020 05:42 PM UTC:I would like to propose a definition of 'pass through check' as "passing through or jumping over a square where it would have been illegal to move your royal to, had that square been empty".
I see the current glossary doesn't contain a definition for 'check'. One could define it as a situation where a royal could be pseudo-legally captured if the player currently on move would pass his turn. But there could be a variant 'Recursive Chess' where it is not allowed to capture a royal when it exposes your own King. So it is perhaps better to define a legal move as a pseudo-legal move that does not expose your royal piece to capture, with the note that a move that terminates the game would never expose anything. Some game-termination rules are such that the actual game result is determined by an 'after-move': E.g. in Shatranj you can win by baring the King, unless the opponent can bare your King in the next turn (in which case it is draw). Or, presumably, when he could capture your King (in which case you would lose by having played an illegal move). So on King baring, he gets an after-move. Variants like King of the Hill allow you to make the winning move to the center only if that move was legal, i.e. reaching the square is not enough, but there is an after-move that reverses the result when it can capture your King. And in Tai Shogi the royal is an Emperor, which can capture to any square on the board. Except that he cannot expose himself to recapture when capturing a royal. So there is an after-move in Tai Shogi even after capture of the royal, and the capture of the Emperor in this after-move has priority in deciding the game result over capture of the first royal! Recursive Chess could also be formulated that way.
So you are in check if the opponent, would it be his turn, has a winning pseudo-legal capture on your royal piece. In orthodox Chess any capture of the King would be instantly winning. But in Recursive Chess capturing the King with a pinned piece, (or in Tai Shogi capturing a protected Emperor with your Emperor) would be a losing capture, as in the after-turn your own King would be taken. So you would not be in check when you expose your King to capture by a pinned piece (or when your Emperor is protected). In al cases this can then be combined with the rule that moves that put your own royal in check are illegal.
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, May 1, 2020 06:14 PM UTC:I think 'bare King' is fine to keep here, but I would remove the entry for 'bare King rule'. I think a list of terms should not include rules. Granted, there is a fine line. For example, I think en passant and castling should be here - but they should be described here in a general way.
The definition of castling presented here dictates rules for exactly how many squares the king should move and that is far too specific in my opinion. I would say something more like 'A move that was added to chess to speed up the game wherein the king and the rook both move in order to simultaneously move the king to safety and develop the rook. This is typically subject to several restrictions.' Then I think it would also be good to link to a page on castling (yet to be written) where more information can be given about the history of the move, the specifics in chess, how it has been adapted to other variants on larger boards, etc. We have a page called 'Castling in Chess 960' which seems too specific to have its own page. (And we typically refer to this game as Fischer Random in other places.) If this is agreed, I will start working on writing a Castling page.
A castling page is a good idea. Things to cover include castling in Chess, longer castling, as in Capablanca's Chess, free castling or enhanced castling, as it is called in Aberg's Capablanca variation, flexible castling, which I introduced in Grotesque Chess, Fischer Random Chess rules for castling, and this new type of castling that Aurelian Florea is calling fast castling.
H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, May 1, 2020 09:46 PM UTC:Although the term 'pseudo-legal move' is standard jargon amongst chess programmers, I am not sure if it would ring a bell with the typical chess player. If this isn't the case, I am not sure if we should keep this term, or perhaps introduce another term for this that sounds less technical. How about 'valid'? A move would be 'valid' if it complied with the rules for moving that particular piece type, irrespective of whether it would comply with any restrictions on exposing (royal?) pieces to capture. A move would be 'legal' if it complies with all rules of the game.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, May 2, 2020 09:34 AM UTC:I propose to change the definition of 'attack' by the following:
- A piece is under attack when the opponent, would it be his turn, could *legally* capture it in the current position.
- A square is under attack from a player when that player could *legally* capture an enemy piece standing on that square, given the remaining board occupation.
- Colloquially, 'to attack' can also mean "play a move that creates one of the above situations".
Where *legally* would refer to the term 'legal', defined as:
Moves are legal when they would comply with all rules of the game. Moves are called pseudo-legal when they they comply with all rules except those that forbid to leave certain pieces (usually called *royals*) exposed to capture after a move.
Where *royals* would refer to an entry for 'royal':
A piece type is called 'royal' when capture or elimination of it terminates the game. With only a single royal per player, capture implies elimination. In some CVs a player can have multiple royals. We can then distinguish absolute royalty (first capture of a royal terminates the game) from extinction royalty (elimination of all royals of one player forces game termination).
CVs often have the rule that it is not *legal* to expose yourself to a game-terminating move of the kind described above that would result in your loss. (See *check*, *mate*.) In this case the mentioned captures cannot be part of any real game, and are only used as hypothetical continuations after moves that are not legal, to establish their illegality.
And for 'check':
A player on move is said to be 'in check' when his opponent, if he were on move, would be able to instantly decide the game in his advantage by capturing a *royal* piece.
(The condition that the capture should be a win is added to exclude cases like Tai Shogi, where capture of a royal by an Emperor would be a loss if recapture is possible. The word instantly was added to exclude situations where the capture of one of multiple royals is merely the first move of a forced winning line. Perhaps the term 'instantly decide' should be replaced by 'terminate', which could then get its own definition in the glossary.)
For 'mate':
A position where the player on move has no *legal* move is called a 'mate'. We distinguish checkmate (when mentioned player is also in *check*) and stalemate (otherwise), and the rules of the CV often assign a different result to those.
Possible entry for 'terminate':
A move is said to terminate a game if it fixes the game result without the players having to play any more moves. This does not exclude that the move is followed by a number of automatic hypothetical moves ('*after-moves*') to determine that the termination condition is indeed fulfilled, and what the game result should be. (E.g. *checkmating* terminates an orthodox Chess game, but two more hypothetical half-moves would have to follow to establish whether the royal can indeed not escape capture.)
After-move:
An after-move is a move in a hypothetical continuation of a *terminated* game for the purpose of determining whether the termination condition was fulfilled, was reached through a move that was *legal*, or what the game result is. E.g. when *baring* the opponent King is a winning game-terminating condition, an after-move can be needed to establish whether the capture that achieved it did not put your own King in *check*. If the result should be adjusted to draw when the bared opponent can counter-bare you through a legal move, two after-moves are needed. In this respect baring differs from capture of a *royal*, which typically does not allow an after-move, and thus never exposes your own royal to anything, so that any pseudo-legal move is also legal. The number of after-moves that should be taken into consideration, and their effect on the game result, is an essential part of definition of the winning condition.
I will get to the suggested revisions in due time, but for now, I want to continue with the first stage, which is to identify terms that may be removed. I left off in the Ms.
These are rarely used:
- move obliquely is used only in Oblique. It may be enough to define the word oblique.
- move passively is used in only a few variants: Lemniscate Chess, Chess with Ultima, Rococo and Supremo Pieces, and Battle of the Six Armies. It could be replaced with "moves without capturing," which would be clearer in meaning and not require its own glossary entry.
- move radially is used only in Tenjiku Shogi, where it has no link to the glossary. It may be enough to include a definition for radial.
- The phrase "move to capture" is common, but apparently not with the definition given for it, which doesn't even make any sense to me.
- neighboring squares is rarely used. This could be shortened to just neighboring. I want to reduce the use of terms with squares, because spaces can be other shapes.
- oblique move
- oblique square
- The word "option" is frequently used but probably not always in the narrow sense of "move option."
- overtake is used only in Checkers with Bosses.
These are not used:
- move zone
- non-capture square
I will stop here for now and continue next time with the Ps.
Continuing with P:
These are not used:
- passive leap
- passive piece (its few uses are not with the glossary definition)
- passive square is used by Charles Gilman in Stock Goes East 49 files, Man and Beast 21, and Fiancé Chess.
- range capture. The more common term is rifle capture.
- rearward diagonals
These are rarely used:
- passive move is used in Tiger Lily Chess and Xiangqi.
- pocket piece appears only in two articles on fairy chess problems.
- points is normally used with other definitions. It is used once on Xiangqi, which just points out that intersections are called points. That could be removed. Point is an uncommon word for intersection.
- radial move appears mainly in some piece articles and a couple games by Charles Gilman and in my Alibaba article.
- radial square appears in Gilman's Mixed Radial Hex Chess, but only to describe another of his games.
- range piece appears mainly in phrases like short-range piece, long-range piece, and mid-range piece, which have nothing to do with the definition given. The definition is for pieces that capture from a distance, such as those in Rifle Chess, but that game's page does not use the term.
- reserved piece is used only in Summoner's Chess.
These seem redundant or unnecessary
- promotable. It's enough to have promote.
- properties is a common English word, and the definition just says see move options.
It's time to take a break again. I'm in the Rs.
Continuing in R:
These are not used:
- rotating piece
- X-Y leaper
These are common words that don't seem to be used much in the sense given:
- screen is often used in other senses, such as a divider for lettings players set up their pieces without the other player seeing. In the sense given in the glossary, it is used on some pages, such as Gross Chess. I'm not sure that the term is heavily used. The term is used by Pritchard in his Xiangqi article.
- see is mainly used in the usual sense. I did not see it used in the glossary sense of a piece seeing.
- species is typically used in other senses, and it could be replaced with "type of piece" or "pieces of the same type" depending on how it's used.
- standard square is normally used in the longer expression "standard square board," not in the glossary sense. The definition of standard move would be less confusing without using this term.
- standard piece seems to be used in the sense of a commonly used or usual piece, not in the glossary sense of a piece capable of only standard moves.
- starting piece is not used very much and is fairly self-explanatory.
- straight-rearward is used only in Maorider Chess, and it is fairly self-explanatory.
- target square is sometimes used in the sense of a space that must be reached to win the game. When it's used in the glossary sense, the context may make its meaning clear enough.
- The only use of "two move rule" in a game is in reference to a different rule.
These seem self-explanatory enough to not need a glossary entry:
- straight-forward
Now I'm done. I didn't list piece names, game names, and other things we have links to, but these could also be removed.
I am now compiling data on which pages have links to the glossary, and which terms have actually appeared in glossary links. Here is a link to glossaryentries.txt, which I created by piping some grep searches into the same file. This only contains data on .html pages. It doesn't tell anything about submissions in the database. I hope to process this data later to get a list of terms that links have been made to the glossary for, but it's time for me to switch gears.
I have now processed the raw data into a list of keywords. I have not removed duplicates, but they indicate how popular a term is.
3dboard 3ddiagonals array array array array array array array array array array array array array array array array attack attack attack attack bare_king bare_king bare_king board_move capture_move capture_move capture_move capture_move capture_move capture_move capture_move capture_move capture_move castling castling castling cell cell cell cell cells cells cells colorbound colorbound column control control control control control control control control control coordinalplane coordinal_plane coordinate_plane custodial_capture custodial_capture cycle defend defend departure_square diagonal_direction diagonal_direction diagonal_direction drop drop drop drop drop drop enemy_piece en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture en_passant_capture file friendly_piece friendly_piece hex hex home_square home_square hop hop hop hop hop intervening_piece intervening_piece intervening_piece intervening_piece in_hand leap leap line_piece move_options move_passively move_passively move_passively move_passively move_passively move_passively move_passively move_passively orthochess orthochess orthochess orthochess orthochess orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthodox_chess orthogonal_direction orthogonal_direction orthogonal_direction orthogonal_direction orthogonal_direction orthogonal_direction orthogonal_direction orthogonal_direction overtaking overtaking overtaking overtaking overtaking palace palace palace palace palace palace palace palace passive_move passive_move passive_move passive_move passive_move passive_move passive_move passive_move passive_move point point point point point point point point point point point point point point point point point point point promoted_piece promoted_piece promotion_zone promotion_zone promotion_zone promotion_zone rank rank rank rank rank reserve_piece reserve_piece river river river river river river river river river river royal royal_piece royal_piece screen screen screen sequence sequence sequence square square stalemate starting_piece starting_piece starting_piece starting_square starting_square starting_square
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, May 2, 2020 10:49 PM UTC:Here is the same list with the terms grouped and counted, in descending order:
34 en_passant_capture
19 point
16 array
16 orthodox_chess
10 river
9 control
9 orthodox
9 capture_move
9 passive_move
8 palace
8 move_passively
8 orthogonal_direction
6 drop
5 rank
5 hop
5 orthochess
5 overtaking
4 attack
4 promotion_zone
4 intervening_piece
4 cell
3 diagonal_direction
3 starting_square
3 starting_piece
3 cells
3 sequence
3 screen
3 bare_king
3 castling
2 custodial_capture
2 defend
2 colorbound
2 leap
2 friendly_piece
2 square
2 home_square
2 royal_piece
2 reserve_piece
2 promoted_piece
2 hex
1 3ddiagonals
1 stalemate
1 board_move
1 royal
1 move_options
1 column
1 enemy_piece
1 coordinal_plane
1 coordinalplane
1 coordinate_plane
1 in_hand
1 cycle
1 departure_square
1 3dboard
1 file
1 line_piece
Thanks. I did the database by manual inspection, because there weren't a lot of submissions with links to the glossary. The only new terms were promote and threatened, the latter being one I added just recently.
Most of these terms can stay. We might not need to keep overtaking, cycle, sequence, line piece, or move options. Of coordinal_plane, coordinalplane, and coordinate_plane, only the first one is correct.
I propose to change the definition of 'attack' by the following:
- A piece is under attack when the opponent, would it be his turn, could *legally* capture it in the current position.
- A square is under attack from a player when that player could *legally* capture an enemy piece standing on that square, given the remaining board occupation.
- Colloquially, 'to attack' can also mean "play a move that creates one of the above situations".
Let me first clean up the English on this:
- A piece is under attack if the opponent could, were it his turn, *legally* capture it in the current position.
- A square is under attack from a player when that player could *legally* capture an enemy piece standing on that square, given the remaining board position.
- Colloquially, 'to attack' can also mean "play a move that creates one of the above situations".
I disagree with the first two definitions. I'll start with the first. In Fusion Chess, for example, whether a compound piece is attacked affects whether it can split apart. This is unaffected by whether the attacking piece is unable to make the capture due to being pinned. Furthermore, this definition introduces a recursive factor into the evaluation of whether one piece is attacking another. To know whether one piece is attacking another, you would have to know how the powers of other pieces affect the movement of that piece.
I would propose the following instead:
1. One piece is attacking another when it has a capturing move that can reach its space, and it is normally allowed to capture or check that piece*. In situations where the only consequence to come from being attacked is being captured, an attack may be considered real only if a capture can actually be made. But in situations where attacking a piece can affect its powers of movement or the outcome of the game, it is normally assumed that other conditions in the game that could prevent the capture, such as being pinned, do not affect whether one piece is attacking another. For example, being pinned would not stop a piece from attacking the enemy king.
2. A space is under attack for a particular piece when moving there without any other changes to the position would expose it to attack in the first sense.**
3. Colloquially, "to attack" can also mean to play a move that creates one of the above situations.
* In most Chess variants, pieces are not allowed to capture pieces belonging to the same side, though exceptions may be made in individual variants. In Korean Chess, cannons are not allowed to capture each other even if they belong to different sides.
** In Chess, any space that is under attack for one piece will be under attack for all pieces belonging to the same side. But in other games, a space could be under attack for one piece but not for another. For example, if a black cannon were on a1, a white king on e1, a white rook on h1, and nothing else on the rank and nothing else attacking it, the spaces f1 and g1 would be under attack for the rook but not for the king. The restriction against castling through check would not stop the King from castling, though the restriction on moving into check would.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, May 3, 2020 03:22 PM UTC:I think the problem here is that there are actually two different forms of 'attacked'. Perhaps it is better to make that explicit by giving them different names, rather than call them the same, and specify under which conditions one definition applies, and under which another. It is hard to foresee whether there will occur cases which would like to use one definition, which we inadvertantly assigned to another. For instance, your criterion of outcome determining doesn't seemt to apply to Tai Shogi: capturing a royal can end the game, but it is not legal for an Emperor (which is a universal leaper, and thus always has every piece in its reach) to do it when the royal was protected. So normally a protected royal is not considered attacked by the opponent's Emperor. So this is a case where legality of the actual capture does matter.
In chess-programmers jargon on uses the qualification 'pseudo-legal' to indicate that rules for checking should not be taken into account. Making the way pieces move dependent on the checking rules indeed introduces recursion in the definition. But it cannot be excluded that this is exactly what the designer of a variant intends. I already mentioned 'Recursive Chess', which is FIDE except that it is not legal to expose your King to capture even for capturing the opponent's King. The recursion is innocent, because it always terminates: there are only two Kings that can be captured. The difference with FIDE can be formulated in terms of an after-move: in FIDE there is no after-move after King capture, so the player whose King is captured can never retaliate; he has already lost. In recursive Chess King capture grants one after-move, and if that also captures a King, the player that made the second capture wins! (Making the first King capture illegal, as it is forbidden to expose yourself to an immediate loss. So you would not be in check by pinned pieces in Recursive Chess.) This is similar to King baring in Shatranj, where the bared player gets an after-move to counter-bare, and salvage a draw that way.
So I think it is better to explicitly distinguish (legal) attack from 'pseudo-legal attack'. The FIDE checking rule could be formulated as "it is not allowed to expose your King to pseudo-legal attack". (IMO any pseudo-legal attack on a King would also be a legal attack, because in FIDE you get no after-move to retaliate after King capture. But not everyone might agree with that interpretation, or even be aware of it, so it is always better to explicitly add the 'pseudo-legal' qualifier.) Similar, in the move rules of Fusion Chess it would be proper to stress that it are pseudo-legal attacks that have consequences for splitting.
To keep the definition of 'attack' simple, we could just take out the word *legal* from the definition I proposed, and add the sentence:
We can distinguish *legal* attacks from *pseudo-legal* attacks, depending on the nature of the involved capture.
where both links would point to the entry for 'legal' in the glossary, with the definition I proposed.
You have a good point about the piece-type-dependent nature of squares being attacked. Chu Shogi forbids Lions to capture each other from a distance, but only when they are protected (i.e. recapture is possible). I have always seen this as a rule similar to the FIDE checking rule, where you cannot expose a Lion to recapture, rather than a King. (Chu Shogi has no checking rule for its King.) So Ln x protected Ln would still be pseudo-legal. There has indeed been discussion whether that rule should be interpreted recursively or not, in cases where more than two Lions are involved. For the Janggi Cannon CxC is always forbidden, though, so it cannot be explained as it not being legal to expose your Cannon. The Ultima Chameleon is another piece that captures different victims with different moves.
The problem with 'attacked' for a square is that it is not obvious what you should imagine to be on it. Most likely the issue of an attacked square comes up in connection with describinbg the move of some piece, and that would make it natural to assume a piece of that type on it. That can still be different from imagining an actual piece moves there, as the disappearence of that piece from its old location could affect whether captures to the square are possible. E.g. a lame Dababba on d1 would not attack f1 when the King is still on e1. Can white castle O-O? I would say not; if the King moves to g1 in two steps, after the first step the Dababba can capture him. So he would be moving through check. If there had been a Cannon on d1, it would have attacked f1 before the castling, but no longer after the first King step. (But of course you would end up in check once you would put the Rook on the other side of the King.)
I think I'll rewrite the first part of my proposed definition of attack a bit:
1. One piece is attacking another when it has a capturing move that can reach its space, and it is normally allowed to capture or check that piece*. In situations where this condition has any bearing on the rules, it is commonly understood that this is unaffected by whether other conditions in the game, such as the piece being pinned, would prevent the capture. An attack where capture is made impossible by other conditions may be called an impotent attack, and where it has no effect on the rules, its significance may be judged by the player facing it.
I don't like the term pseudo-legal, because it suggests something that is legal-like without actually being legal. For example, pseudoscience is understood to be fake science, not something that could sometimes be real science but doesn't have to be.
For instance, your criterion of outcome determining doesn't seemt to apply to Tai Shogi: capturing a royal can end the game, but it is not legal for an Emperor (which is a universal leaper, and thus always has every piece in its reach) to do it when the royal was protected. So normally a protected royal is not considered attacked by the opponent's Emperor.
This is covered by the condition that it has to have a capturing move to the space. An emperor does not have a capturing move to a space occupied by a protected royal piece.
The problem with 'attacked' for a square is that it is not obvious what you should imagine to be on it.
I actually made it very explicit what would be on it. A space is not under attack in general. It is under attack for a particular piece that could move to or pass over that space.
H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, May 3, 2020 06:53 PM UTC:I don't like the term pseudo-legal, because it suggests something that is legal-like without actually being legal. For example, pseudoscience is understood to be fake science, not something that could sometimes be real science but doesn't have to be.
I agree, but it happens to be the standard term. It is a very useful concept, so I think that when we don't like the name, we should just find another name for it. I already coined the term 'valid move'. I suppose 'semi-legal' suffers from the same problem as 'pseudo-legal'. 'Proper move' would be another possibility. A problem is that for these terms it is not obvious that they might conflict with legality. How about 'near-legal' or 'close-to-legal'?
This is covered by the condition that it has to have a capturing move to the space. An emperor does not have a capturing move to a space occupied by a protected royal piece.
I don't think so. The Emperor does have a pseudo-legal move to that square. That it cannot use it is just because it would expose itself (the royal) to capture, just as moving a pinned piece would. So if you mention pins as an example of things that should not be taken into account for game-terminating moves, it is not obvious at all (and would even be very illogical) that stepping into check with the royal itself would not be excluded too. Note that in the FIDE case K x K is allowed, even when the captured King is protected: I cannot step my King next to the enemy King even when my King is protected there. You would be able to do that in Recursive Chess, btw.
Greg Strong wrote on Sun, May 3, 2020 07:20 PM UTC:I think we should stick with pseudo-legal. It is established terminology and it is close enough IMO.
That said, quasi-legal is a possible alternative.
I was going to look up Tai Shogi, but it appears we do not have our own page for it. Maybe I'll look up another page on it tomorrow, but it's late right now.
H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, May 4, 2020 08:09 AM UTC:Yeah, the shear size of Tai Shogi so far deterred me from making a page for it. You could look at Maka Dai Dai Shogi, though: this uses the same Emperor (except that you can only get it through promotion). This says:
The Emperor is a Universal Leaper: it can move to any square of the board. It cannot capture enemy pieces that are protected, though. That even holds for capturing the opponent's last royal. Protected here means that the Emperor could have been recaptured if the opponent would have been allowed to play on without royal.
In FIDE a King cannot capture a protected piece, but it can capture a protected King, so it is illegal to put it next to your opponent's King even when protected. For Emperors the opposite holds: you cannot capture a protected Emperor with it. (This difference is due to the after-move, and in the description of the Emperor I elaborate on the initial statement in terms of such an after-move.) Note that the historic rule descriptions of these games are very minimal. So it is not really known if the ban to expose your Emperor to capture is for every move, for every capture or just for capturing the opponent's last royal. Because no one in his right mind would ever even consider exposing his Emperor to capture if it would not be for the purpose of instantly winning the game or taking out the opponent Emperor, they don't waste words on it. Were the game to continue, being an Emperor behind means a certain loss. Also, Shogi is usually played under the rule "illegal move = loss", as opposed to FIDE, where "illegal move = take back". So it is completely pointless to make extra rules that make losing moves illegal in Shogi.
Anyway, this ignores the main point: the purpose of the glossary is to clarify matters by assigning unique meanings to concepts that universally apply. Not to promote confusion by making the definition of a term context dependent, possibly in an undesired way. If a term is ambiguous because its meaning depends on context, its use should be discouraged. If we describe such terms, it would be wise to accompany those with a warning like:
The meaning of this term is context-dependent, and to minimize confusion due to incorrect interpretation of the context, it should not be used in rule descriptions.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
John William Brown created this page 20 years ago, and he wrote on it
It has been longer than that, and it's about time we updated the glossary. The original purpose behind the glossary was a good one. We need a common vocabulary for speaking about Chess variants, and we need a common reference for that vocabulary.
Brown drew from multiple sources to build this glossary. We all have access to this site, which is one of them. I own copies of the books by Pritchard and Dickins. All I'm missing is Brace's book. If there are other resources we can draw upon, please mention them in a comment.
In updating this project, I aim to
However you think you may help, please do. You may post your thoughts and ideas here as we go about this.