Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 12:25:21 07/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2001 at 13:53:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >However, the previous sentence says "if and only if" and therefore it is >required at all times. If a capture can be made, then there is an opposing side >pawn. If a capture cannot be made there is none. I also verified the meaning >with Steven J. Edwards. At any rate, I have asked him to change the meaning for >the next iteration of the standard. If I say "A is true if B is true", A is true if B is true, and A is undefined if B is false. If I say "A is true if and only if B is true", A is true if B is true, and A is false if B is false. But if A is false, that doesn't mean that B is false, which is what you contend. Of course, if the author of the document says that that's what he meant, then the meaning is clarified. But to specify that you *must* set the EP square to e3 on 1. e4 is dumb, and I wouldn't do it. It's troubling that two important standards are in the hands of someone who doesn't seem to have much time to maintain them, who is not really interested in hearing what others have to say about them, and who makes strange and pedantic decisions. I asked him if I could make be involved in discussion of the "new" PGN standard (about three years ago), and he essentially told me "no". I can't remember his exact reason, but it was something to the effect that he was going to involve Bob and other important people. I thought that was very strange. Meanwhile we have a PGN standard with a billion NAG's, which can't actually be used to correctly store an Informant game. bruce
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.