Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 16:49:08 06/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2004 at 19:20:30, Sune Fischer wrote: >I don't think we, as programmers, have the right to say to people "look you're >just going to have to get used to reading it like this, because it's way easier >for me to program this way". > >_We_ are the ones who have to conform, _not_ the general public. >They just won't show any sympathy for your/our very technical and logical >arguments :) I don't think "we" (engine programmers) have to conform to anything. All "we" have to do is have our engines spit out "e2e4" and let the GUI convert it to whatever format the user desires. We need to be clear on what we are discussing. We are discussing which notation is best for a data standard. Not which is easier for us to read, or what is the most popular with the general public. That is for the GUI programmers to worry about. For a data standard, I don't think you can go wrong with coordinate notation, "g1f3". It is simple. Everyone already supports it (or could support it in 5 minutes, if that). It is the cleanest, most lightweight. We could add an 'N' on to the front, but that is redundant. It is more of an issue of philosophy to me. If we are going to aim for simplicity, then let's not waver from that unless there is a good reason.
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.