Maybe you could add a MaB 00 with the definitions, so that you don't have
to repeat them everytime the same term appears, but people would know where
to look for the definition should they need to?
For me, the thing that always makes my head explode is the paragraphs that
go like:
If we do this simple operation, we have THIS, THAT, THISOTHERTHING,
THATOTHERTHING, THESEOTHERTHINGS, THOSEOTHERTHINGS,
THOSEOTHERTHINGSOVERTHERE, YETMORETHINGS, YADDAYADDAYADDA...
And so on until we've gotten a couple dozen names. The regularity is
nice, but maybe we'd need a section on 'formulae', so that when we find
one of those uberlong compound names we can easily break it to its
components and try to figure the movements.
In fact, this system would be great if Chess was being invented anew, and
we didn't have to respect the names for well known pieces, ie, the FIDE
Six, but also Camel and Zebra, Marshall and Cardinal, so on. This way, the
system would give names to those pieces that tells us how they move (like
you do with Point, Saltire...), and the more complex pieces are formed by
standard components. Under this ideal, diagrams wouldn't be needed because
the piece name itself tells you how it moves, and vice-versa. The problem
would come with notation.