Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Betza notation (extended). The powerful XBetza extension to Betza's funny notation.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Dec 9, 2021 09:48 AM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Wed Dec 8 08:00 PM:

I am still a bit unhappy with the need for an s prefix on a diagonal atom (where it does not select any initial direction) in order to define a meaning of q and z in following legs. Perhaps we should always classify all moves of an atom as either bending left or right; for oblique atoms this is natural, as the left and right moves are mirror images. For orthogonal and diagonal atoms this would be artificial, but could be adopted as a convention. E.g. on a diagonal atom fr and bl could be defined as bending right, while fl and br could be defined as bending left. For an orthogonal atom we could define f and r as bending right, and b and l as bending left. (I cannot imagine a case where this would be useful for f and b, though.) A Ship would become FafzF with these conventions, as we want the initial fr step to bend left, i.e. in opposit direction as the (artificially assigned) initial bend.

@Jean-Louis:

I would still like your opinion on whether you think F(F-fsR) would be a less cryptic notation for the Griffon (and F(F-fzR) for the Ship, KNAD(cK-K)(cK-bK)(K-bK) for the Chu-Shogi Lion, where (cK-bK) is the igui, (cK-K) the locust and double captures, and (K-bK) the turn pass). Or perhaps F[F-fzR] with brackets instead of parentheses?

[Edit] Just to try it out a bit I now made it such that notations like [fF-fsR] are also accepted for multi-leg moves. The interpretation is still very flaky, though. Basically the atoms mentioned in the later legs are ignored, except their range (which must be leaper or infinite). The direction is purely derived from the angular spec in front of them. So it does not matter whether you would write B, R or Q as continuation leg. I suppose that I could make it such that it checks whether the directional spec is compatible with the mentioned atom, and issue an error message when it is not. Nice feature is that the first atom can be a distant orthogonal or diagonal leap, and then combine with a slider in the next leg. So the Osprey would be D[D-fsB]. It can also be made non-jumping, e.g. R2[nD-fsB].