Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Ten years later: revising EPD/FEN/PGN

Author: Heiner Marxen

Date: 06:37:42 09/11/03

Go up one level in this thread


On September 10, 2003 at 17:23:46, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote:

>Hi Dieter,
>
>>About castling and FRC. Reinhard made some good suggestions, but I would think
>>even cleaner would be, to use the column of the rook. So in normal chess, wqWQ
>>would be ahAH. This would easily generalize to FRC positions.
>
>well this is a clean and usable approach.  The problem would be, that this
>suggestion is not backwards compatible to old FEN.  For not to devalue old
>data, new FEN reading programs would be forced to understand two different
>versions of FEN.  My proposal is not that pretty as yours, but instead it
>is fully compatible with the old FEN.
>
>>About e.p. target. I think everybody would agree, that it is better, when it
>>is only set, when the pawn has a neighbour, than can capture. One should also
>>define, what to do in the case, that the neighbour is pinned to the K, so that
>>it cannot take. Perhaps, allow in this rare case to have ep set or unset.
>
>I would like not to demand any playability of an e.p. capture, when an
>e.p. position has beed encoded in FEN.  I argue for simply signaling by
>the e.p. flag, that a pawn just has performed a double step, placing it
>immediately near one or two hostile pawns at the right or left.
>A missing of that flag, when any e.p. capture would not be legal, could
>be tolerated, but should not be the rule.  Not every FEN producing system
>is aware to generate legal moves.  Those programs should not be forced
>to additionaly implement yet not really needed chess knowledge.

I agree completely.

>Regards, Reinhard.

Heiner



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.