Re: Bit arithmetic on Unicode characters?

Essentially all of the game pieces that are in Unicode were added for
compatibility with existing character sets. ​I'm guessing that ​there are
hundreds to thousands of possible other symbols associated with games in
one way or another, or that could be dug out of instruction manuals (eg,
http://www.catan.com/files/downloads/catan_5th_ed_rules_eng_150303.pdf).
(Many of those would be encumbered by copyright issues, but there are no
doubt others that would not.)

I would recommend that any proposal for additional game symbols provide
clear evidence for why those particular game symbols are required to be
exchanged in plain text, in a way that many, many other possible game
symbols are not.

Mark

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Garth Wallace <gwalla_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> Markup for rotation is highly underdeveloped, and in this case for chess
>> it has its own semantics, it's not just a presentation feature, possibly
>> meant for playing on larger boards with more players than 2, and
>> distinguished just like there's a distinction between white and black, or
>> meant to signal some dangerous positions or candidate target positions for
>> the next moves.
>>
>
> Not exactly. Rotation of chess piece symbols is not a presentation feature
> (at least as I understand the term), and isn't meant for use with
> multiplayer games. The rotated pieces are used in chess problems,
> specifically heterodox or "fairy chess" problems, where they stand in for
> non-standard pieces. A rotated rook, for instance, means "a piece that is
> not a rook but is similar in some respects"; which piece it represents
> specifically depends on context. Conventionally, the upside-down queen
> represents a "grasshopper" and the upside-down knight a "nightrider", but
> otherwise they are assigned on a problem-by-problem basis. This practice
> dates back to the early 20th century and was originally so that problem
> composers wouldn't have to cut new type for every new piece they invent but
> is now traditional.
>
> I also see some additions like florettes, and elephants needed for
>> traditional Asian variants of the game, plus combined forms (e.g.
>> tower+horse) which are quite intrigating.
>> There are also variants rotated 45 degrees.
>>
>
> The florettes are also used in problems, as are the equihoppers (the
> symbol that looks a bit like a bow tie or spindle). The compound symbols
> are found in problems and in several common variants such as Capablanca
> Chess and Grand Chess. The jester's cap is similar. The elephant and fers
> are used in shatranj or medieval chess.
>
>
>> All those are not just meant for display on the grid of a board but in
>> discussions about strategies. There are also combining notations added on
>> top of chess pieces (e.g. numbering pawns that are otherwise identical, but
>> in plain text you can still use notations with superscript digits or
>> letters, distinguished clearly from the numbering of grid positions, or by
>> adding some other punctuation marks).
>>
>
> I haven't encountered that. It's rarely necessary to differentiate
> individual pawns in notation: their moves are so limited that it's usually
> obvious which pawn is moving, and there is a standard method of
> disambiguating moves by starting square if needed.
>
>
>> I still don't see in these images the elephants (or other pieces like
>> unmovable rocks or rivers, or special pieces added to create handicaps for
>> one of the player). I've also seen some chess players using special queens
>> by putting a pawn on top of a nother falt pawn, with more limited movements
>> than a standard queen. There are also bishops/sorcerers/magicians, eagles,
>> dragoons, tigers/lions, rats, dogs/foxes, snakes,
>> spiders, soldiers/archers, canons, walls/fortresses, gold/treasures...
>> Chess games have a lot of variants with their supporters. Modern movies are
>> also promoting some variants.
>>
>
> There are elephants in the proposal, using a shape found in medieval
> manuscripts. Rocks and rivers are board features and not found in notation.
>
>
>>
>> 2016-10-08 17:24 GMT+02:00 Ken Shirriff <ken.shirriff_at_gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>> Looking at the image, the idea of the proposal is to include chess piece
>>> symbols in all four 90° rotations? Wouldn't it be better to do this in
>>> markup than in Unicode? I fear a combinatorial explosion if Unicode starts
>>> including all the possible orientations of characters. (Maybe there's a
>>> good reason to do this for chess; I'm just going off the image
>>> <http://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss7/Garth_Wallace/proposed%20characters_zps81m0frvl.png>
>>> .)
>>>
>>
> The proposal covers this. These have a well-established use in chess
> notation, which doesn't apply to non-chess symbols. Markup would be the
> wrong way to do this. It's not like, say, electronic schematics where a
> diode symbol may be found in any orientation but still always represents a
> diode: a rotated queen symbol is specifically *not a queen* but another
> piece entirely.
>
> Currently, fairy chess problemists rely on font hacks and PDFs (even for
> relatively short texts).
>
Received on Sun Oct 09 2016 - 06:01:35 CDT