Why do we leave out consideration of equal/different corners and sides?
I have not done that. I consider equal ones equally and different ones differently, which is what makes most sense.
Can't we agree that switches can be entered from all sides and a choice must be made between the fields of the switch? Surely that would be much easier for everyone.
No, it would not be easier for everyone. This makes the game more confusing and complicated, because paths to and from Switch spaces are no longer symmetrical with each other. This would allow one King to attack another, and the following position would count as checkmate.
I think my position is quite logical.
It's not logical. At best, it is not outright contradictory.
At the beginning of the discussions, I was of the opinion that switches work differently when they are operated from below, from the side, or from above.
That's the position which makes the most sense, because it makes how Switches work a consequence of the geometry of the board.
I have abandoned this opinion and changed it in favor of a pragmatic solution, in that a switch must be handled the same regardless of the direction.
This conflicts with the rule that the space a piece is on in a Switch determines how it may move away. While you could have both rules, it makes the game more confusing.
Are you saying that a piece cannot capture a piece in a Switch unless it can move to the space the piece is on? Or are you saying that when a piece can move to either space in a Switch, it can move to the Switch and capture the piece, and then it must occupy the space the piece was on?
This seems to me to be much simpler than you make it out to be.
After all, a piece can only be captured where it is. Why should this be different for a switch?
I was asking you to clarify which of two possible interpretations of what you said is the correct interpretation, but you didn't do that.
Why should a piece be able to move to A4, and thereby capture a piece on a4 quasi en passent? That only happens with pawns. But that's where it should stay. The basic principle should be that pieces are captured on the square on which the pieces were placed. Pragmatic solution, isn't it?
In both of the alternatives I asked you about, the capturing piece ends up on the space the captured piece was on. But you have not indicated which you have in mind. So, let me illustrate the difference.
In this position, can the Black Pawn capture the White Pawn and move to A4? Or is the Black Pawn unable to capture the White Pawn, because the move from c5 to A4 is not diagonal?
I have not done that. I consider equal ones equally and different ones differently, which is what makes most sense.
No, it would not be easier for everyone. This makes the game more confusing and complicated, because paths to and from Switch spaces are no longer symmetrical with each other. This would allow one King to attack another, and the following position would count as checkmate.
It's not logical. At best, it is not outright contradictory.
That's the position which makes the most sense, because it makes how Switches work a consequence of the geometry of the board.
This conflicts with the rule that the space a piece is on in a Switch determines how it may move away. While you could have both rules, it makes the game more confusing.
I was asking you to clarify which of two possible interpretations of what you said is the correct interpretation, but you didn't do that.
In both of the alternatives I asked you about, the capturing piece ends up on the space the captured piece was on. But you have not indicated which you have in mind. So, let me illustrate the difference.
In this position, can the Black Pawn capture the White Pawn and move to A4? Or is the Black Pawn unable to capture the White Pawn, because the move from c5 to A4 is not diagonal?