Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

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.

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.

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.

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.

I propose to change the definition of 'attack' by the following:

1. A piece is under attack when the opponent, would it be his turn, could *legally* capture it in the current position.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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.

Ok, I will start working on that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

John William Brown created this page 20 years ago, and he wrote on it

Perhaps sometime within the next decade, a few dozen terms will have earned the popularity they need to merit an official lexicon. This is how new terms become a part of a common language. The only problem that I have with this process is that we could use that lexicon now! It is for this reason that I have jumped the gun, so to speak, and assembled the following terms into a modest CV glossary.

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

1. Weed out terms that are not commonly used.
2. Weed out terms that don't need to be in the glossary because we have separate pages on them.
3. Add terms that should be in the glossary.
4. Make sure that terms are defined cleary and unambiguously.
5. Make sure that terms are defined consistently with current usage.
6. Make sure that terms are defined in a manner that works with multiple Chess variants.

However you think you may help, please do. You may post your thoughts and ideas here as we go about this.