General implementation of the bracket notation might make some of this unneeded. I mean, [K?fsQ] for Gorgon seems clear enough; why would you need a special notation (which no one would know or remember) for such a rarely used piece? The Griffon is much more common. The 'again, including backwards' issue also solves itself in bracket notation, where you would simply prefix the continuation leg with ab.
Problem with null move is indeed how to enter it, not how to describe it. An unconditianal null move could be assigned to the King, but that is just a kludge, as a null move cannot really be assigned to any piece. There could also be a parameter allowPass=1 to enable null moving, which could then provide an extra button to play it, rather than a tricky combination of board clicks that users might not be aware of. Because there is no enforcement of turn order, turns can always be passed when the AI is off. And when the AI is on there could be a button 'Pass' next to the button 'Move', which would do the same, but for the other player. Of course some provision for this should be made as well in the game notation.
The zig-zag/circular slides now use a different internal representation than other (more general) multi-leg moves. This is undesirable, and should be integrated. The whole problem can be reduced to the possibility for optional early termination of a multi-leg sequence. Using parentheses re-introduces the problem that the special z/q representation tried to solve, namely that slides are expanded into different, strongly overlapping lame leaps. Which makes move generation very inefficient. Problem is that the parentheses often indicate early termination of a sequence of intermediate legs, which must still be followed by a final one. (Which makes them similar to hook movers.) So it is not really an 'early termination' of a longer move. If the entire path was precomputed (maximum number of repeats) there should be a provision for optionally skipping a number of legs, to continue with the final part.
I once coined the idea to use the E atom in the bracket notation for a null leg on an edge square. Which would make the Edge Hog simply [E-Q][Q-E]. Using a semicolon separator in the bracket notation for indicating the remaining legs are for 'shooting only' would probably solve the crooked rifle-capture problem. The modifier cc could then be used for indicating a juggernaut leg, like pp could be used for hopping over arbitrary many.
General implementation of the bracket notation might make some of this unneeded. I mean, [K?fsQ] for Gorgon seems clear enough; why would you need a special notation (which no one would know or remember) for such a rarely used piece? The Griffon is much more common. The 'again, including backwards' issue also solves itself in bracket notation, where you would simply prefix the continuation leg with ab.
Problem with null move is indeed how to enter it, not how to describe it. An unconditianal null move could be assigned to the King, but that is just a kludge, as a null move cannot really be assigned to any piece. There could also be a parameter allowPass=1 to enable null moving, which could then provide an extra button to play it, rather than a tricky combination of board clicks that users might not be aware of. Because there is no enforcement of turn order, turns can always be passed when the AI is off. And when the AI is on there could be a button 'Pass' next to the button 'Move', which would do the same, but for the other player. Of course some provision for this should be made as well in the game notation.
The zig-zag/circular slides now use a different internal representation than other (more general) multi-leg moves. This is undesirable, and should be integrated. The whole problem can be reduced to the possibility for optional early termination of a multi-leg sequence. Using parentheses re-introduces the problem that the special z/q representation tried to solve, namely that slides are expanded into different, strongly overlapping lame leaps. Which makes move generation very inefficient. Problem is that the parentheses often indicate early termination of a sequence of intermediate legs, which must still be followed by a final one. (Which makes them similar to hook movers.) So it is not really an 'early termination' of a longer move. If the entire path was precomputed (maximum number of repeats) there should be a provision for optionally skipping a number of legs, to continue with the final part.
I once coined the idea to use the E atom in the bracket notation for a null leg on an edge square. Which would make the Edge Hog simply [E-Q][Q-E]. Using a semicolon separator in the bracket notation for indicating the remaining legs are for 'shooting only' would probably solve the crooked rifle-capture problem. The modifier cc could then be used for indicating a juggernaut leg, like pp could be used for hopping over arbitrary many.