Single Comment

An update:

Getting close to a complete draft proposal, I think. It's dominated by
fairy chess problem symbols, since it's easier to demonstrate that they
are in use than variantist, distinct per-piece symbols. Which shouldn't be
surprising, since a game exists whether it's written down or not, but
chess problems really don't; they *are* their written form.

On the variantist side, so far I am including the bishop-knight,
rook-knight, and queen-knight compounds (using the generic descriptors
since the name situation is so garbled). I'm currently debating with
myself whether I should include shatranj symbols in the proposal. I have
found one document that uses them in text: Sonja Musser Golladay's paper
on the Alfonso manuscript. Since the shatranj piece shapes are nearly
unrecognizable as their modern counterparts (with the exception of the
knight and pawn), I could possibly make a case, though basing it on a
single text is a bit weak.

The manuscripts that describe Tamerlane Chess apparently contain no
illustrations of the added pieces. Any symbols for those pieces are modern
innovations, and I can't find any examples in text, just diagrams. The
other Shatranj Kamil variants are similar. Grant Acedrex is in a slightly
better position, since the Alfonso manuscript itself does at least provide
symbols for the pieces. But again, no use in text: Musser Golladay's paper
uses symbols for the basic shatranj pieces in notation but full names for
the pieces specific to GA. Even her move diagrams use pawns and promoted
pawns as stand-ins. Courier Chess is like GA, and it is also unclear to
what extent its pieces should be unified with the shatranj and/or modern
chess pieces.