💡📝H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, May 15, 2021 06:57 AM EDT:
I would like to make some extensions of XBetza notation. But not all of those would be backward compatible. So I want to poll opinions on how bad this would be.
W*, F*
Now that I defined the n modifier on stepper/slider atoms as generating e.p. rights, the rule that a 'flexible range' like fW* would always generate e.p. rights has become counter-productive. When this is wanted it could be described with fnW*, and the rule prevents use of the flexible range for pieces that cannot be e.p. captured. (Such as the Ninja Pawn of Hadean Chess.) So I would like to drop it. Problem is that there might be many diagrams around that rely on this rule for their Pawn moves.
The j modifier
I 'overloaded' the j modifier to mean a double step size on the first step of a sliding move, so that jB can be used to describe a Ski-Bishop. I would like to generalize this to all rider moves, with the understanding that on larger leap the modification of the first leap would turn it into the corresponding step (W or F). So that jAA could be used to describe a 'Skip-Bishop', visiting the odd squares on the diagonal (and not blockable on the even squares). The official (legacy) meaning, however, would be repetition of an Alfil leap that must jump over an occupied square. But it seems to me that no one uses, or would want to use such a move.
Flexible and free castling
Currently flexible castling has to be specified through a separate O atom for each possible King step. This because, in contrast to other atoms, a range on O indicates an exact range, rather than a maximum. This because that is usually needed for a castling. But not so for flexible castling, which on a very wide board then can lead to cumbersome notations like isO1isO2isO3isO4isO5. Perhaps it would be an improvement to extend the normal syntax of Betza notation, and allow specification of a range with the aid of a hyphen: isO1-5. A second problem are alternative castlings where the Rook does not end up adjacent to the King. The move definition would then not only have to specify the distance travelled by the King, but also where the Rook ends. Perhaps it is an idea to specify this as a 'decimal fraction' in the range: isO2.1 could mean that the King moves 2 steps, but that the Rook would not end next to the King, but keeps one empty square between the two. Then isO2.0 would mean the same as isO2.
I would like to make some extensions of XBetza notation. But not all of those would be backward compatible. So I want to poll opinions on how bad this would be.
W*, F*
Now that I defined the n modifier on stepper/slider atoms as generating e.p. rights, the rule that a 'flexible range' like fW* would always generate e.p. rights has become counter-productive. When this is wanted it could be described with fnW*, and the rule prevents use of the flexible range for pieces that cannot be e.p. captured. (Such as the Ninja Pawn of Hadean Chess.) So I would like to drop it. Problem is that there might be many diagrams around that rely on this rule for their Pawn moves.
The j modifier
I 'overloaded' the j modifier to mean a double step size on the first step of a sliding move, so that jB can be used to describe a Ski-Bishop. I would like to generalize this to all rider moves, with the understanding that on larger leap the modification of the first leap would turn it into the corresponding step (W or F). So that jAA could be used to describe a 'Skip-Bishop', visiting the odd squares on the diagonal (and not blockable on the even squares). The official (legacy) meaning, however, would be repetition of an Alfil leap that must jump over an occupied square. But it seems to me that no one uses, or would want to use such a move.
Flexible and free castling
Currently flexible castling has to be specified through a separate O atom for each possible King step. This because, in contrast to other atoms, a range on O indicates an exact range, rather than a maximum. This because that is usually needed for a castling. But not so for flexible castling, which on a very wide board then can lead to cumbersome notations like isO1isO2isO3isO4isO5. Perhaps it would be an improvement to extend the normal syntax of Betza notation, and allow specification of a range with the aid of a hyphen: isO1-5. A second problem are alternative castlings where the Rook does not end up adjacent to the King. The move definition would then not only have to specify the distance travelled by the King, but also where the Rook ends. Perhaps it is an idea to specify this as a 'decimal fraction' in the range: isO2.1 could mean that the King moves 2 steps, but that the Rook would not end next to the King, but keeps one empty square between the two. Then isO2.0 would mean the same as isO2.