🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, May 4, 2020 05:41 PM UTC:
So no, I don't think we are talking about different things at all. Pseudo-legal moves are moves that a piece has considering the occupation of the departure square, target square and possibly the squares along the path that it is supposed to take to get to the latter.
None of the dictionary definitions for occupation in Merriam-Webster fit your use of the word here. I suppose you're trying to refer to the pieces occupying those squares. So, let's rewrite this as
Pseudo-legal moves are moves that a piece has considering which pieces are on the departure square, the target square, and possibly the squares along the path that it is supposed to take to get to the latter.
Consider a royal Dragon King in Fusion Chess. It has the Rook's move, but it cannot move through check. Whether or not a space it may cross over is checked will depend upon what is on other spaces than those you just named. So, by the definition you gave here, it has the pseudo-legal move to capture exactly as a Rook does.
As I was writing this, I decided to test this out in both Zillions-of-Games and Game Courier. I did the same series of moves in both, creating a situation where a White Dragon King was on the same file as a Black Paladin with nothing in between them, but there was an intervening space covered by a Black Rook. In Zillions-of-Games, the Paladin could not split apart, because the code considered it attacked by the Dragon King, but in Game Courier, it could split apart, because the code recognized that the Dragon King could not pass the Rook's rank to capture the Paladin. This is a matter I hadn't thought about before, and I'm going to have to make a decision about how it works. I'll begin with an examination of the code for each to determine how easily one or the other could be changed. In this game, attacks by one royal piece against another are allowed even across checked spaces, but captures by royals of non-royals are illegal if the royal piece has to move through check to complete the move. I could say that the royal piece can make impotent attacks against non-royals, and these are enough to stop them from splitting apart, or I could rule the other way. There is some leeway about what to do here, and I will get back to this discussion after I look into that.
None of the dictionary definitions for occupation in Merriam-Webster fit your use of the word here. I suppose you're trying to refer to the pieces occupying those squares. So, let's rewrite this as
Consider a royal Dragon King in Fusion Chess. It has the Rook's move, but it cannot move through check. Whether or not a space it may cross over is checked will depend upon what is on other spaces than those you just named. So, by the definition you gave here, it has the pseudo-legal move to capture exactly as a Rook does.
As I was writing this, I decided to test this out in both Zillions-of-Games and Game Courier. I did the same series of moves in both, creating a situation where a White Dragon King was on the same file as a Black Paladin with nothing in between them, but there was an intervening space covered by a Black Rook. In Zillions-of-Games, the Paladin could not split apart, because the code considered it attacked by the Dragon King, but in Game Courier, it could split apart, because the code recognized that the Dragon King could not pass the Rook's rank to capture the Paladin. This is a matter I hadn't thought about before, and I'm going to have to make a decision about how it works. I'll begin with an examination of the code for each to determine how easily one or the other could be changed. In this game, attacks by one royal piece against another are allowed even across checked spaces, but captures by royals of non-royals are illegal if the royal piece has to move through check to complete the move. I could say that the royal piece can make impotent attacks against non-royals, and these are enough to stop them from splitting apart, or I could rule the other way. There is some leeway about what to do here, and I will get back to this discussion after I look into that.