💡📝H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 19, 2024 09:14 AM UTC:
Well, I don't see how t[FR] is significantly different than [F-R]. And as a practical concern, it uses a t where lower-case letters for modifiers are already in short supply. Of course one could argue that in front of brackets the symbols really live in a different namespace, so that they can all have different meanings than when prefixing a capital.
The problem with the [ca] etc. is that they are special cases that have no generalizations. 'Approach' how? Do you have to end next to your target, or is it enough to just move in its direction? Or must you stop at a distance of exactly 2 squares? By introducing [ca] you still don't have any notation for the latter two cases.
But I agree that the current version of the notation can still be improved. Proposals for that have already been made. In particular the case of automatic but not mandatory side-effect captures (i.e. which must remove the victim if it is there, but won't block the move if it is not) is now very awkward, and the modifier cc had been proposed for that (for lack of available letters). This would write the Advancer as [Q-ccK], i.e. a Q move that must afterwards perform a rifle capture through a K-step in the same direction, if there is an enemy there, but can still make the Q move if there isn't, and the next square is a friend, empty or off board. The case of a 'long-range Advancer' would then be [Q-ccQ].
And by changing the order of the legs you get the Withdrawer for free: first shoot the victim, and then move in the opposit direction ([ccK-bQ]).
Well, I don't see how t[FR] is significantly different than [F-R]. And as a practical concern, it uses a t where lower-case letters for modifiers are already in short supply. Of course one could argue that in front of brackets the symbols really live in a different namespace, so that they can all have different meanings than when prefixing a capital.
The problem with the [ca] etc. is that they are special cases that have no generalizations. 'Approach' how? Do you have to end next to your target, or is it enough to just move in its direction? Or must you stop at a distance of exactly 2 squares? By introducing [ca] you still don't have any notation for the latter two cases.
But I agree that the current version of the notation can still be improved. Proposals for that have already been made. In particular the case of automatic but not mandatory side-effect captures (i.e. which must remove the victim if it is there, but won't block the move if it is not) is now very awkward, and the modifier cc had been proposed for that (for lack of available letters). This would write the Advancer as [Q-ccK], i.e. a Q move that must afterwards perform a rifle capture through a K-step in the same direction, if there is an enemy there, but can still make the Q move if there isn't, and the next square is a friend, empty or off board. The case of a 'long-range Advancer' would then be [Q-ccQ].
And by changing the order of the legs you get the Withdrawer for free: first shoot the victim, and then move in the opposit direction ([ccK-bQ]).