De notatione motuum in ludo scaccorum: observationes et postulata

You are getting into the spirit of it, I see. To be more Roman the the Romans, but perhaps not more than The Great Roman™, I suppose you should use the Latin terms for the pieces. Nonne?   In a previous post HERE I write about the Latin terms for pieces.

Namely:

• 1 rex, sive scaccus
• 1 regina (vel virgo, vel amazon, vel domina), sive dama (unde damicus ludus), vel fercia
• 2 turres, vel elephantes, sive rochi
• 2 episcopi (vel satellites, vel signiferi, vel cursores, vel sagittiferi), sive alfini
• 2 equites
• 8 pedites, vel pedini, sive pedones.

For our Latin notation let’s make the

King = Rex = R
Queen =Domina = D
Rook = Turris = T
Knight = Eques = E

Pawns don’t usually get a letter, but P.

“But Father! But Father!” you might saying rather than “At etiam Pater!  Quid de ‘episcopis’, vulgariter, ‘bishops’?” Quid, indeed.

I checked that page I referenced and it has been updated.  As we know the bishop was once a “fool” the split hat being not a miter but a foolscap, cap and bells.  Hence, a Latin term for bishop is also stultus.   I like it.  It’s better than cornutus.

Let the B as in B be an S as in S.

Hence we have our roster:

King = Rex = R
Queen =Domina = D
Rook = Turris = T
Bishop = Stultus = S
Knight = Eques = E

We can leave some of the other bits of notation alone.

Thus….

1) QhV+ KgVIII (coactus)
2) BdV+ NeVI (coactus)
3) BxeVI++ (scaccus mattus)

Is….

1) DhV+ RgVIII (coactus)
2) SdV+ EVI (coactus)
3) ExeVI# (scaccus mattus)

We might get very fancy and do something like…

1) DθV+ R ηVIII (coactus)
2) SδV+ EεVI (coactus)
3) ExεVI# (scaccus mattus)

Perhaps that’s too cumbersome, with the Greek letters for the files.