As mentioned before, not knowing which piece is which can led to confusion when trying to play a move like
See this comment noting such an error in an actual game:
Blackburne – Golmayo (1891), Havana CUB, rd 3, Feb-18 (kibitz #4)
and the explanation in kibitz#6 just below.
Here’s a screenshot from Steinitz’s International Chess Magazine, v7, Feb 1891 p48, showing the ambiguous descriptive notation at White’s move 28 (well, ambiguous if the piece’s don’t denote QR vs KR and the reader wasn’t careful tracking each piece during play).
The replay window is my new program, with the Q-side vs. K-side pieces differentiated. The rook on f7, highlight-ready to move, has the little black dot on its base, denoting it as the QR. Easy to spot when needed. Which is probably why Steinitz, playing on such a set, never realized the difficulties his notation might cause some hundred+ years later.
I’ve got a fully functioning version of the program now, which allows the entire game to be input, fully and correctly (i.e. castling, e.p., promotion all handled properly). The mousewheel can be used to scroll move-by-move forwards/backwards in the game. The pieces get moved via the click-click method, as I haven’t done drag-and-down (yet(?)).
One essential feature is to produce a record of the game to put into a real chess database program, like SCID. Here’s the PGN, after inputting the entire game (printed out with just a right-click):
[Event "Blackburne--Golmayo Havana Match (1891)"] [Site "Havana CUB"] [Date "1891.02.18"] [Round "3"] [White "Golmayo, C."] [Black "Blackburne, J.H."] [Result "1-0"] [EventDate "1891.02.18"] [Source "ICM v7 N2 (Feb 1891) p48 G-558"] 1. e2e4 e7e5 2. g1f3 b8c6 3. d2d4 e5d4 4. f3d4 g8f6 5. b1c3 f8b4 6. d4c6 b7c6 7. d1d4 d8e7 8. f2f3 b4c5 9. d4d3 h7h6 10. c1e3 c5e3 11. d3e3 e8g8 12. e1c1 f8e8 13. g2g4 f6h7 14. h2h4 d7d6 15. e3d4 e7e5 16. d4d2 a8b8 17. f3f4 e5a5 18. g4g5 h6h5 19. f4f5 g7g6 20. f1c4 h7f8 21. d1f1 e8e7 22. f5g6 f8g6 23. f1f6 c8e6 24. c4e6 e7e6 25. h1f1 e6e7 26. d2f2 a5b6 27. f6f7 b6f2 28. f7f2 b8f8 29. f2f8 g6f8 30. f1f6 e7f7 31. f6h6 f7h7 32. h6f6 h7f7 33. e4e5 f7f6 34. e5f6 f8g6 35. c3e2 g8f7 36. c1d2 g6h4 37. d2e3 h4g6 38. e2f4 g6e5 39. e3e4 e5c4 40. f4h5 d6d5 41. e4f5 c4e3 42. f5f4 e3g2 43. f4e5 g2h4 44. e5f4 h4g6 45. f4f5 g6h4 46. f5g4 h4g2 47. c2c3 a7a5 48. a2a4 g2e3 49. g4f4 e3g2 50. f4e5 g2h4 51. b2b4 h4f3 52. e5f5 f3h4 53. f5g4 d5d4 54. c3d4 a5b4 55. h5f4 h4g2 56. f4d3 g2e3 57. g4f3 e3c2 58. f3e4 b4b3 59. e4e5 c2e1 60. e5e4 e1c2 61. d3e5 f7e6 62. f6f7 e6e7 63. g5g6 1-0
I’ve edited the PGN tags and result to match the game, as the program just prints out defaults (yes, it’s not too smart, or rather, user-friendly). Still, one can just cut-and-paste the above into SCID, or Chessbase, and have a correct version of the game (and with normal PGN transcribed).
It shows the game at White’s 28th move. Using Steinitz, it’s not clear which rook is which for the 28.QRxQ move. With the new program we can not only immediately see which rook moves, but also see that it’s only K+Q knights standing in the final position:(Click to enlarge)
At this point the program is pretty serviceable, though quite rough around the edges. Let’s see it I work on it more (maybe- as a tactical trainer/opening book trainer). I would have preferred modifying SCID, but assuming the K-side/Q-side pieces are the same is a very fundamental design decision, baked in quite early I assume.