Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:41:50 10/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2000 at 05:14:00, Andreas Stabel wrote: >On October 18, 2000 at 22:35:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 18, 2000 at 16:22:36, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>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. >> >> >>I totally disagree here. The purpose of a "standard" is _not_ "flexibility". >>It is preciseness. IE the C pseudo-standard is lacking in many places. Is >>a char signed or unsigned? Left up to implementors. Do bit fields start from >>msb or lsb in a word? same answer. Hard to call something a "standard" when >>you can't measure anything against it, because _anything_ will pass it. >> >>I despise 1.e4 moves. Why? a parsing issue. I use the output specs and >>have been happy. I try to parse all the idiot ways of saying "castle" but >>that ought not be a problem if everyone just 'read' the standard. > >Says the man who precedes black moves with N. ... <move> :) >(Sorry - I couln't help it) Not in my PGN output. :) because I don't imbed any comments, unless you mean .can files from annotate. I don't like 1... any better than I like 1.e4, for the same reasons. But you have to admit, without anything, we would not have the millions of games available we do have floating around.
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.