H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, Apr 26, 2020 10:22 AM UTC:
I agree this is the usual terminology ('attacked'/'protected'). In the game description you use the word 'threatened', though, which I now understand means "attacked or protected". I am not sure that is standard terminology (in fact I think the more comon meaning of 'threatened' is "attacked and not (sufficiently) protected or of higher value than the attacker"), and in any case it is rather ambiguous. And it still leaves open the question whether pinned pieces attack or protect anything.
So I think it would be good to add an unambiguous definition of 'threatened', e.g. "when it would not be legal for the King to be left on that square replacing whatever was there before". I have now adapted the phrasing that way in the Metamachy article.
I agree this is the usual terminology ('attacked'/'protected'). In the game description you use the word 'threatened', though, which I now understand means "attacked or protected". I am not sure that is standard terminology (in fact I think the more comon meaning of 'threatened' is "attacked and not (sufficiently) protected or of higher value than the attacker"), and in any case it is rather ambiguous. And it still leaves open the question whether pinned pieces attack or protect anything.
So I think it would be good to add an unambiguous definition of 'threatened', e.g. "when it would not be legal for the King to be left on that square replacing whatever was there before". I have now adapted the phrasing that way in the Metamachy article.