As with Bob, really my answer is (at the moment) that I don't; it works well enough for what it does (as H.G. has elaborated on). More that we were discussing a previous commenter's proposal to extend it using non‐ASCII.
I'd still be tempted to hold out a degree of openness for exactly the purpose I mentioned: 3D (let alone 4D) or unusual (hyperbolic, say — I've been musing over an actual Regular Octagonal Chess to match Frolov's approximation) boards where the existing letters would all apply but more would be necessary to cover the extra moves. Though one might equally argue that at that point it's far enough from the familiar that Betza is somewhat out of its depth anyway.
And while hexagonal boards may be in scope for the ID, I imagine 3D and hyperbolic boards are far from it ;)
you'd (apparently) lean toward using ß for Sexton, while I'd use it for Switchback
We're technically not contradicting each other; I was using capital ⟨ẞ⟩, as is usual for atoms, whereas Switchback, whilst really something that XBetza would tend to spell out explicitly, is definitely small ⟨ß⟩ material
under my suggestion, I could define Þ to represent the Rose's movement path (possibly with a line something like def Þ = qN -- not just a character replacement, but a definition of a movement path).
Strictly speaking a path‐and‐mode model is not quite what XBetza does; rather it decribes moves in stages.
Which is, to be fair, in line with how Betza thought; the ‘Ferz‐then‐Cannon’ of his Bent Riders article comes easily to XBetza whereas a path‐and‐mode description thereof is cumbersome at best. Conversely path‐and‐mode describes the contrasted ‘Bent Cannon’ much more naturally.
I may be wrong, but trying to get XBetza to manipulate a Rose path in that way once it's been defined might be more convoluted than it appears
As with Bob, really my answer is (at the moment) that I don't; it works well enough for what it does (as H.G. has elaborated on). More that we were discussing a previous commenter's proposal to extend it using non‐ASCII.
I'd still be tempted to hold out a degree of openness for exactly the purpose I mentioned: 3D (let alone 4D) or unusual (hyperbolic, say — I've been musing over an actual Regular Octagonal Chess to match Frolov's approximation) boards where the existing letters would all apply but more would be necessary to cover the extra moves. Though one might equally argue that at that point it's far enough from the familiar that Betza is somewhat out of its depth anyway.
And while hexagonal boards may be in scope for the ID, I imagine 3D and hyperbolic boards are far from it ;)
We're technically not contradicting each other; I was using capital ⟨
ẞ⟩, as is usual for atoms, whereas Switchback, whilst really something that XBetza would tend to spell out explicitly, is definitely small ⟨ß⟩ materialStrictly speaking a path‐and‐mode model is not quite what XBetza does; rather it decribes moves in stages.
Which is, to be fair, in line with how Betza thought; the ‘Ferz‐then‐Cannon’ of his Bent Riders article comes easily to XBetza whereas a path‐and‐mode description thereof is cumbersome at best. Conversely path‐and‐mode describes the contrasted ‘Bent Cannon’ much more naturally.
I may be wrong, but trying to get XBetza to manipulate a Rose path in that way once it's been defined might be more convoluted than it appears