As to [N-Q] and its like, why not just have it equivalent to [N-R][N-B]? After all, that would give symmetry with [Q-N] as well as making useful an otherwise useless definition (as anything involving the ‘advanced geometry’ would never result in a combination of orthogonal and diagonal moves, making [N-Q] a less elegant synonym for [N-R] (or another leap followed by B)) into a nice shorthand (much like Q itself)
Note that Charles Gilman proposed an equivalent definition of outward nearly ten years ago
As to
[N-Q]and its like, why not just have it equivalent to[N-R][N-B]? After all, that would give symmetry with[Q-N]as well as making useful an otherwise useless definition (as anything involving the ‘advanced geometry’ would never result in a combination of orthogonal and diagonal moves, making[N-Q]a less elegant synonym for[N-R](or another leap followed by B)) into a nice shorthand (much likeQitself)