Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation
olopierpa at gmail.com
Mon Apr 3 15:04:54 CDT 2017
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Richard Wordingham
<richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2017 10:43:39 -0700
> Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> In these cases, explicit encoding would better cover what is desired:
>> a reliable way to mark a distinction between different symbols (the
>> two bishops are separate symbols, that also happen to express
>> distinct, though related concepts -- it is not a single symbol with
>> some ignorable attributes).
> There was no intention to encode the bishops separately. It just
> happens that the rules of chess allow one to distinguish the bishops
> simply by recording the colour of the square they are currently on.
The rules of chess don't allow this.
While at the start of a game there are two bishops per player with
this property, there are ways to obtain more bishops. One player, say,
can have four bishops all of them on light squares.
This does not happen (usually :) in chess *games*, but it may happen
in problems, puzzles, and retroanalysis.
Even in standard games, it's not forbidden by the rules, so it's wrong
to assume it can't happen.
More information about the Unicode