Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:55:45 07/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2001 at 18:42:19, Heiner Marxen wrote: [snip] >I have not yet looked into the sources of Gerbil, please excuse my ignorance. > >If the above means "can actually be taken by a *legal* move", then it appears >to be really new. I'm not positive which is the case. I only read through the section once, and so I am not positive which it is. In any case, it's a really good idea. >If thew above means "can actually be taken by a *pseudo legal* move", >then this is not really new. It has been discussed some time ago (on this >board IIRC). E.g. Chest does so, by setting the flag "e.p. is possible" >within move execution only for those pawn double steps with an enemy pawn >in the correct position (left or right of the moving pawn's target). >This is not perfect, but much better than flagging each double step. > >As a consequence the FEN generated from such positions is not strictly >correct according to the standard from SJE, but IMO the standard should >be changed, here. Yes, I think the current PGN standard is broken in regard to e.p. squares. For instance, how many distinct positions is this: [D]rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p4/3P4/8/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - You can make 4 of them, if you have to set e.p. flags, but there is only one real position. Multiply the number of potential pawns affected and it explodes with great stupidity.
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.