Author: Alan Cowderoy
Date: 13:23:55 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
>There are many topics for discussion here: yes I entirely agree. > >1) Is Steven J. Edwards out, and if so, is this how ownership of the standard is supposed to be passed? Good question. Before even considering publishing anything at all I attempted to contact Steve Edwards. I was unable to do so. I discussed this with Mark Crowther who had been in contact with him while writing his book but the address he had for him no longer worked either. I posted a request for information to rgcc without success. I wrote in my post to rgcc that the document is intended as a **draft proposition**. It was written in the spirit of trying, however imperfectly, to put together some concrete proposals for discussion. If we have not submitted these correctly to the relevant authority then I appologise, and I come back to your own question - Who owns the standard? To whom should i (or anyone else for that matter) submit proposals for changes to it? >2) Is this a fait-accompli since Chessbase and Chess Assistant have apparently >signed on to this? Why would we be publishing **draft proposals** to rgcc if it was a fait accompli? That makes no sense. As I understand it Chessbase and ChessAssistant's position is that they would like to see **something** implemented. If it is possible to agree an extension then they are willing to support it. They are essentialy saying "agree something and we will support it". This then constitutes a genuine possibility to advance the standard with support from the major chess database manufacturers. The questions then are: "Is there now any way to propose changes to the pgn standard?" "If so how should this be done and who arbitrates?" "Is encoding clock times in pgn a good idea?" "If it is a good idea how should it be done?" My guess is that if there is no way of extending pgn then DGT, CB and CA will agree on some proprietary format or fork the standard. > >3) Does anyone have anything to say about the changes proposed? Are they good >changes? Anders Thulin has made a fairly detailed set of criticisms of the proposals as they stand which I will try and answer as soon as I can. While i have put a good deal of effort into the proposals I realise that others are far more expert than I in producing this sort of rigorous specification. I am genuinely gratefull for help in getting this right The question though is not only "Are they good changes?" but also "Are there good changes we need to make? "Are there people who are willing to help get them right" and "Who decides?" > >I don't know who started this effort, but the main point seems to be to design a >way that the time on the clock after each move can be recorded in PGN. There is >no sensible way to do this now, so they use pseudo-comments to do this. I did. It started after we used our pgn to html/js software Palview to cover the Swedish championships live. This coverage worked a treat apart from the fact that we were unable to display any clock times for the simple reason that as our pages were generated from pgn we didn't have any clock times to display. (the proprietary lost boys software does not have this problem of course) As a result of that Axel Fritz from the German news site schach.de put me in touch with Ben Bulsink of DGT who make the boards. He is in contact with Mathias Feist and Viktor Zakharov and the discussion rapidly turned to the possibility of proposing an extension to pgn. > >A possible problem is that they are overloading their clock-time tag already. >It is both a command to the viewer, which presumably could be displayed however >the viewer wants to display it, and as an embedded argument (I can't think of >another way to say this) to a normal comment. Meaning that we have this: >{[%clk 1:03:23]} >and this: >{White is in time pressure since he only has [%clk 0:00:22] left.} Yes. There is a section of the document which seems to suggest that the commands should somehow be replaced by text in order to complete the comment. I agree that this is wrong and it has caused some confusion. The clk command is intended to encode the clock time shown on a digital clock (ie the time remaining to the next control.) and nothing else. We do not realy imagine this command being written by anything other than software, and normaly by software connected to electronic boards. The emt command, which is the one used in the paragraph causing the confusion is intended as a command to encode the time taken for the move in question. There is no intention that this be a command to the viewer nor that the result returned needs to somehow slot into the surrounding comment as the example does indeed suggest. I stand corrected. ><snip></snip>I'm still concerned that there could be a >rush to change the spec so that DGT and CB/CA can solve a technical problem, and everyone else could pay for this due to a broken or poorly designed set of PGN >extensions. Personaly i'm not rushing anywhere. I'm just trying to see if we can solve the problem that you rightly pointed out yourself in this thread in 1996 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&ic=1&th=1fe06718d5ec89a5,20&seekm=4psfnl%24i5m%40darkstar.UCSC.EDU read on and Steve Edwards replies that the solution was the BIF format which was never implemented. He even specificaly uses clock times as an example. Someone else immediately suggested embedding the code in comments in order to avoid breaking existing software - so we come full circle because five years later that is what we are proposing and for exactly the same reason. > >Is this the way the PGN standard should go? > and if it isn't where should it go and who decides? Regards Alan Cowderoy Palamede
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.