Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 12:47:35 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 15:29:50, Andrew Wagner wrote: >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. I don't agree to coordinate notation. I would rather see something more readable for the "normal" chessplayer (and programmer). Most of us are used to PNBRQK by reading chess books. And I like to play the first few moves in my head to see what game/opening I'm dealing with even when managing raw data. I'm also not very happy with SAN. It's probably the most readable for humans, but as mentioned before not the easiest to implement. For the raw data I would prefer a "long" format, because it's always simpler to write a parser that leaves things awas than a parser that has to restore things. As a compromise, I find long algebraic the best, something like Nf3xg5+, d7-d8q my personal opinion Andy
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.