The form
>
>        (chess-symbol #x1FA00 #x1FA67)
>
> requires that _both_ #x1FA00 and #x1FA67 be supported by a font, for
> it to be eligible to display chess-symbols.  By contrast, the form
>
>        (chess-symbol . [#x1FA00 #x1FA67])
>
> requires that _either_ of the two characters is supported.  So my
> question is: do we really want _both_ of the characters supported by a
> font, and if not, do we really want Emacs to reject such a font?
>

I have updated the patch accordingly and replaced (chess-symbol #x1FA00
#x1FA67) with  (chess-symbol . [#x1FA00 #x1FA67])

> You don't have Symbola installed?

I have the Symbola font installed via the gdouros-symbola-fonts package on
my Fedora37 system, but it does not seem to support
the chess-symbols block as verified by hb-view.
Its description in the fedora wiki also does not mention the chess-symbols
block:

> Symbola covers the following scripts and symbols supported by The Unicode
> Standard 5.2: Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended-A, IPA
> Extensions, Spacing Modifier Letters, Greek and Coptic, Cyrillic, Cyrillic
> Supplementary, General Punctuation, Superscripts and Subscripts, Combining
> Diacritical Marks for Symbols, Letterlike Symbols, Number Forms, Arrows,
> Mathematical Operators, Miscellaneous Technical, Control Pictures, Optical
> Character Recognition, Box Drawing, Block Elements, Geometric Shapes,
> Miscellaneous Symbols, Dingbats, Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A,
> Supplemental Arrows-A, Supplemental Arrows-B, Miscellaneous Mathematical
> Symbols-B, Supplemental Mathematical Operators, Miscellaneous Symbols and
> Arrows, Supplemental Punctuation, CJK Symbols and Punctuation, Yijing
> Hexagram Symbols, Vertical Forms, Combining Half Marks, CJK Compatibility
> Forms, Specials, Tai Xuan Jing Symbols, Counting Rod Numerals, Mathematical
> Alphanumeric Symbols, Mahjong Tile Symbols, Domino Tile Symbols.
>

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 7:38 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: समीर सिंह Sameer Singh <lumarzeli30@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 19:22:09 +0530
> > Cc: 58098@debbugs.gnu.org
> >
> >  I don't understand this part: why should we require #x1FA67?  Did you
> >  perhaps mean this:
> >
> >        (chess-symbol . [#x1FA00 #x1FA67])
> >
> > Isn't the script-representative-chars used to improve font selection by
> requesting more characters?
> > So does the specific character requested have any effect? because I
> chose it randomly.
>
> The form
>
>        (chess-symbol #x1FA00 #x1FA67)
>
> requires that _both_ #x1FA00 and #x1FA67 be supported by a font, for
> it to be eligible to display chess-symbols.  By contrast, the form
>
>        (chess-symbol . [#x1FA00 #x1FA67])
>
> requires that _either_ of the two characters is supported.  So my
> question is: do we really want _both_ of the characters supported by a
> font, and if not, do we really want Emacs to reject such a font?
>
> Did you look at what #x1FA67 looks like?  It is not a "traditional"
> chess symbol.  And neither are the characters that are its neighbors.
>
> >  We already have the setup for chess-symbol, below this line where you
> >  are making changes.  Is it not enough for some reason?
> >
> > Prior to this patch the chess symbol block was not rendered on my
> machine despite having its font (Noto
> > Sans Symbols2)
>
> You don't have Symbola installed?
>