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 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.