Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:00:10 06/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2004 at 16:30:20, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On June 09, 2004 at 16:19:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Why not think about this in the reverse way: >> >>The moves have a single internal to XML format, but then they can be converted >>to anything someone wants. I personally prefer SAN because that is how books >>and things are published, excepting those that use figurine notation. But let's >>not allow XML to be all things to all people. Let's make it a standard with >>appropriate conversion utilities so that someone requiring the brain-dead e2e4 >>notation can extract the games in that format and use them... >> >>If we don't pick a single internal standard, then this isn't going to work, >>because I too will write my own parser, and I don't want to deal with multiple >>move formats. If I don't like what is being used, I want a tool that will >>convert to what I want. And since everyone will not agree on a single format, >>let's pick one for the standard and give conversion tools to make everyone >>happy. >> >>Parsing SAN is _not_ hard. There is public code to do that in the epd kit as >>well as inside Crafty itself. Since the PGN standard specifies algebraic and >>allows SAN as well, that seems like a reasonable start (note that Algebraic is >>the Ng1f3 type moves, not just g1f3) that is sometimes needed to resolve >>ambituities in SAN moves.) Parsing in SAN has got to be the most difficult way of doing it, the moves require a move generator to be read and written correctly. Think of those who wants to code a small pgn viewer in java or something, they have to start with a move generator ie. practicly write half a chess program. That's completely unnecessary with a simpler format. >The e2e4 format is terrible because it is difficult to read for humans (uh, what >piece did he move?). Yes I also think it's terrible for humans, but for internal handling it's much more practical. > Admittedly parsing SAN is not hard (Zappa has a SAN parser) >but Long algebraic (Nf3xe5) is easier for humans and computers both. Long SAN is never used in books or in human notations afaik, so it's not something people is used to, hence it's not as good as SAN for humans, I think. But it is a good compromise if you want some readability while avoiding the SAN hassle. -S. >anthony
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.