This is an interesting project. I'm not sure about using Betza notation for the primary keys though.
Although we can specify some rules, such as alphabetical order of discrete moves, I don't think that completely solves the problem of uniquely determing the notation for a piece and applying the rules isn't really "user friendly" (assuming people will be selecting these values - if it was only a database primary key, it could just be an integer.)
But a bigger problem than uniqueness is that, for some pieces, the Betza notation is so user-unfriendly that it is really only suitable for programming. For example, one notation for the Falcon is "afafsKafsafKafraflKaflafrK". Or consider the Advancer - the XBetza is a multi-leg move to move on top of the victim and then back off one space so it's pretty ugly too. I think "Falcon" and "Advancer" are far more user-friendly identifiers.
You have a table to allow specifying that pieces have different names in different games. I think we can have one standard name used for internal identification and, in most cases, it is pretty obvious what this internal name would be. In ChessV you can call any piece whatever you want in any game but each pre-defined piece has an "internal name" which is used for global identification. I generally had no problem deciding what internal name made sense. The only place I remember having some difficulty was the Griffin/Aanca pieces. For these I settled on calling them Ferz Then Rook and Wazir Then Bishop, which are admittedly non-standard, but at least very clear. Overall this approach has worked well. I have probably close to a hundred pieces defined - I'll dump a list of the names...
This is an interesting project. I'm not sure about using Betza notation for the primary keys though.
Although we can specify some rules, such as alphabetical order of discrete moves, I don't think that completely solves the problem of uniquely determing the notation for a piece and applying the rules isn't really "user friendly" (assuming people will be selecting these values - if it was only a database primary key, it could just be an integer.)
But a bigger problem than uniqueness is that, for some pieces, the Betza notation is so user-unfriendly that it is really only suitable for programming. For example, one notation for the Falcon is "afafsKafsafKafraflKaflafrK". Or consider the Advancer - the XBetza is a multi-leg move to move on top of the victim and then back off one space so it's pretty ugly too. I think "Falcon" and "Advancer" are far more user-friendly identifiers.
You have a table to allow specifying that pieces have different names in different games. I think we can have one standard name used for internal identification and, in most cases, it is pretty obvious what this internal name would be. In ChessV you can call any piece whatever you want in any game but each pre-defined piece has an "internal name" which is used for global identification. I generally had no problem deciding what internal name made sense. The only place I remember having some difficulty was the Griffin/Aanca pieces. For these I settled on calling them Ferz Then Rook and Wazir Then Bishop, which are admittedly non-standard, but at least very clear. Overall this approach has worked well. I have probably close to a hundred pieces defined - I'll dump a list of the names...