From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 07:00:51 CDT
At 03:27 -0700 2004-05-25, Andrew C. West wrote:
>On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:23:19 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
> >
> > Now that you mention it, it could well be that Chaturunga and Chinese
> > Chess both could be considered extensions to a unified Chess
> > repertoire:
> >
> > WHITE CHATURANGA COUNSELLOR (-> white chess queen)
> > WHITE CHATURANGA ELEPHANT (-> white chess bishop)
> > BLACK CHATURANGA COUNSELLOR (-> black chess queen)
> > BLACK CHATURANGA ELEPHANT (-> black chess bishop)
> > WHITE XIANGQI MANDARIN (advisor, assistant, guard)
> > WHITE XIANGQI CANNON
> > BLACK XIANGQI MANDARIN
> > BLACK XIANGQI CANNON
> >
>
>I don't think that a unified chess repertoire would be useful. Although
>individual pieces in chaturanga, chess, xiangqi and shogi may
>correspond to each other in function, they are represented
>differently (Western chess pieces are represented by pictures,
>xiangqi pieces by ideographs in a circle, shogi pieces by kanji
>inscriptions in a five-sided figure), so that I do not believe that
>there would be a single character of the "unified chess repertoire"
>which would be common to any two chess families. You would, I think,
>have to encode each set of characters used to represent games pieces
>separately for each chess family.
Andrew, if you look at the links in my original posting about
Chaturanga you will see that "generic" Chess pieces are indeed used
for these.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 25 2004 - 07:04:48 CDT