Try adding a hole to the piece definitions. This suppresses elimination of mp intermediate legs by joining those to the following leg. In general this is a good thing to do, except when a back-and-forth step is used to test whether there still is room on board, or to prevent jumping over internal holes. The latter is prevented by only joining mpo legs when there could be holes. (But most Diagrams do use mp for joining legs, not mpo). I have not found a way to generally automate suppression of the joining in the former case. I think I currently avoid joining steps if that would result in a null leg. But on-board testing through XBetza need not always be like that; with an acute angle between steps you can also stray off a rectangular board.
Try adding a hole to the piece definitions. This suppresses elimination of mp intermediate legs by joining those to the following leg. In general this is a good thing to do, except when a back-and-forth step is used to test whether there still is room on board, or to prevent jumping over internal holes. The latter is prevented by only joining mpo legs when there could be holes. (But most Diagrams do use mp for joining legs, not mpo). I have not found a way to generally automate suppression of the joining in the former case. I think I currently avoid joining steps if that would result in a null leg. But on-board testing through XBetza need not always be like that; with an acute angle between steps you can also stray off a rectangular board.