Author: Brian T. Hamm
Date: 13:11:50 08/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 1999 at 15:02:09, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >I'd like to know, too. I would also like to know if there is a common standard >for descriptive notation. > I don't know if there is an actual standard, but at least the few places I still see descriptive notation offer answers to your ambiguity questions (see below). Keep in mind, I'm no expert on descriptive notation and any errors I make are a good hint at why I use standard algebraic notation. > >Here are some questions: > >If white has pawns on f4 and f5, and black has pawns on e5 and e6, how do you >describe fxe6? > PxP(K6) > >If white has knights on f3 and f5, how do you say N3d4? > N(B3)-Q4 > >If white has pawns on d4 and c4, and black has pawns on d5 and c5, is dxc5 >written as PxBP or QPxP, and if either of those is ambiguous do you use the >other one? > PxBP seems sufficient... Where ambiguity is concerned, I believe the idea is to always minimize the amount of characters necessary to convey a move distinctly. > >I've never seen an established standard for disambiguating descriptive >notation. > Perhaps the easiest way to maintain a common use standard on descriptive notation is to parallel what current programs use. For instance, I think FileMate (a .PGN editing utility) allows descriptive notation, and mimicry may not be a bad idea as needed. -Brian
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.