Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Talk:De ludo scachorum

Latest comment: 10 years ago by 86.173.41.168 in topic Keene's illustration

Capitalization of title

edit

An image of the manuscript that is the subject of this article appears at the Aboca Museum home page. If you look closely at the spine, the original capitalization is "De ludo schaccorum". That is what one should expect. The manuscript is written in Latin. In Latin, titles are written in what is sometimes called sentence case in English: Only the initial letters of the first word, of proper nouns, and of proper adjectives are capitalized. In rendering titles of works, Wikipedia follows the capitalization of the original. See, for example, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (another work in Latin). Although some secondary sources have altered the original title to follow English language title case, Wikipedia does not alter original titles. Finell (Talk) 08:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply


Scacchorum

edit

The correct word is scacchorum in latim, not "schaccorum". Please, see Scacci. --Roberto Cruz (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Keene's illustration

edit
abcdefgh
8
 
a8 black king 
d8 black rook 
e8 black knight 
f8 black bishop 
h7 black bishop 
g6 white rook 
h6 black rook 
e5 black queen 
c4 white king 
e4 white bishop 
h4 white knight 
g3 white rook 
d2 black pawn 
f2 black pawn 
g2 white pawn 
h2 white bishop 
b1 white queen 
d1 white knight 
g1 black knight 
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Keene's transcription...
abcdefgh
8
 
a8 black queen 
d8 black rook 
e8 black knight 
f8 black bishop 
h7 black bishop 
g6 white rook 
h6 black rook 
e5 black king 
c4 white queen 
e4 white bishop 
h4 white knight 
g3 white rook 
d2 black pawn 
f2 black pawn 
g2 white pawn 
h2 white bishop 
b1 white king 
d1 white pawn 
g1 black knight 
8
77
66
55
44
33
22
11
abcdefgh
Pacioli's original (with outlaw pawn)?

According to the video in the EL [2] (at 16:35) Raymond Keene has got the kings and queens reversed in the set up. 86.173.41.168 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This would surely put a question mark over much of the current Critical analysis section? 86.173.41.168 (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Reply