Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML

Author: Andrew Wagner

Date: 12:29:50 06/10/04

Go up one level in this thread

On June 10, 2004 at 15:05:28, Jon Dart wrote:

>On June 10, 2004 at 14:59:38, Russell Reagan wrote:
>
>>On June 10, 2004 at 14:45:04, Andrew Wagner wrote:
>>
>>>I think we
>>>should stay away from anything that uses PNBRQK within the notation, and shoot
>>>for as much simplicity as possible.
>>
>>As Dan Honeycutt pointed out in the other thread, coordinate notation still
>>requires NBQR for promotions, ex. e7e8Q.
>
>Plus, my $0.02 is that we already have a good standard for moves (SAN). Why
>change to something else?
>
>--Jon

For the reasons I mentioned, lower overhead (much easier to code for coordinate
notation), and because it avoids using PNBRQK, which helps in the international
community.

• Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML Andreas Guettinger 12:47:35 06/10/04
  • Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML Marek Strejczek 13:46:02 06/10/04
    • Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML Russell Reagan 15:40:16 06/10/04
      • This is the point!! Andrew Wagner 17:36:55 06/10/04
        • Re: This is the point!! Sune Fischer 23:21:49 06/10/04
  • Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML Anthony Cozzie 13:43:17 06/10/04
    • Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML Andrew Wagner 17:40:15 06/10/04
      • Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML Andrew Wagner 17:41:41 06/10/04
    • Re: Where we've been and where we're going in the discussion on XML Dan Honeycutt 16:51:07 06/10/04

This page took 0.01 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.