Jump to content

Talk:De ludo scachorum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:De ludo scacchorum)

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]