Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 13:22:36 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2000 at 14:11:03, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On October 18, 2000 at 14:07:24, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>My conclusion from your list is the PGN standard is poorly designed. It lacks >>flexibility and makes outright bad decisions. It is obvious that some of the >>reasons for the variations are that there are *good* reasons to vary. > >I'm not sure what you mean by this. What is a good example of a reason to vary >some of these things? #5 is motivated by the desire to work with the word wrap feature of many editors. Many people do not like to have the move number separated by a line from the move itself since they can be misled into thinking it is a move by Black. Omitting the space is an effective solution for this. It is perhaps a matter of taste, but there is no good reason not to accomodate this alternative form. Also, omitting the space is more compact. An example: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nd4 4.Nxe5 | Qg5 5.Nxf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 Qxe4 7.Be2 | Nf3# | 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4 4. | Nxe5 Qg5 5. Nxf7 Qxg2 6. Rf1 Qxe4 | 7. Be2 Nf3# | Note, the difference with the move 4.Nxe5. I prefer the first version, which avoids the separation of the move number from the move itself when the word-wrap feature is employed. Bruce Moreland listed some good suggestions in his post. "Inflexibility" is *my* primary gripe. See #13.
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.