Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:10:59 09/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 2001 at 19:55:18, Bob Green wrote: >On September 10, 2001 at 13:37:48, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On September 10, 2001 at 13:19:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>The PGN standard seems to be owned by Steven J. Edwards. The standard is >>>extremely important, and he hasn't made any changes to it for the past several >>>years, so there is now an attempt to declare him unimportant and change the >>>spec. >>> >>>A post detailing these changes was submitted to r.g.c.c. a few days ago. The >>>changes are being authored by: >>> >>>Alan Cowderoy (Palamede), Ben Bulsink (DGT Projects), Andrew >>>Templeton(Palamede/Palview), Eric Bentzen (Enpassant.dk, Palamede), Mathias >>>Feist >>>(Chessbase), Victor Zakharov (Chess Assistant). >>> ><big snip/> >>> >>>Is this the way the PGN standard should go? >> >>I have not read the posts on r.g.c.c yet. The above change does not seem to >>hold much value, that I can see. I suggest the following: >>1. Attempt to contact SJE, and propose changes. >>2. Try to work with him instead of ignoring him. >> >>I doubt if you can simply toss him aside and create a new PGN standard. I am >>speaking of copyright priviledge. After all, he is the author of the document. >> >>On the other hand, a new standard could be created from scratch. > >First off, I'm an XML bigot. But that doesn't necessarily make the following >wrong :) > >I think PGN could be improved and made **much** more flexible by creating a new >standard from scratch using XML Schema. Converting a text-based XML document to > information usable in your program (viewer, game engine, whatever) is very >easy; there are XML parsers in every language known to (pick the diety of your >choice.) > >XML obviates the issue above - you don't "break" the existing XML standard when >you extend it to include new features - the "X" in XML is for eXtensible after >all. > >For those of you unfamiliar with XML your could take the simple example from the >beginning of the PGN standard found at: > >http://www.schachprobleme.de/chessml/faq/pgn/ > >which is: > >[Event "F/S Return Match"] >[Site "Belgrade, Serbia JUG"] >[Date "1992.11.04"] >[Round "29"] >[White "Fischer, Robert J."] >[Black "Spassky, Boris V."] >[Result "1/2-1/2"] >1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 >O-O 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. c4 c6 12. cxb5 axb5 13. Nc3 Bb7 14. Bg5 b4 15. >Nb1 h6 16. Bh4 c5 17. dxe5 Nxe4 18. Bxe7 Qxe7 19. exd6 Qf6 20. Nbd2 Nxd6 21. >Nc4 Nxc4 22. Bxc4 Nb6 23. Ne5 Rae8 24. Bxf7+ Rxf7 25. Nxf7 Rxe1+ 26. Qxe1 Kxf7 >27. Qe3 Qg5 28. Qxg5 hxg5 29. b3 Ke6 30. a3 Kd6 31. axb4 cxb4 32. Ra5 Nd5 33. >f3 Bc8 34. Kf2 Bf5 35. Ra7 g6 36. Ra6+ Kc5 37. Ke1 Nf4 38. g3 Nxh3 39. Kd2 Kb5 >40. Rd6 Kc5 41. Ra6 Nf2 42. g4 Bd3 43. Re6 1/2-1/2 > >and convert it to XML after first defining the schema by which the XML document >should follow. However, the following XML document should be readable and >understandable by most (including every computer with an XML parser!): > ><game> > <event> > <evntName>F/S Return Match</evntName> > <round>29</round> > </event> > <date>1992.11.04</date> > <site> > <city>Belgrade</city> > <country>Serbia JUG</country> > </site> > <white> > <firstName>Robert</firstName> > <middleName>J</middleName> > <lastName>Fischer</lastName> > </white> > <black> > <firstName>Boris</firstName> > <middleName>V</middleName> > <lastName>Spassky</lastName> > </black> > <result>1/2-1/2</result> > <turn>1 > <Wmove>e4</Wmove> > <Bmove>e5</Bmove> > </turn> > <turn>2 > <Wmove>Nf3</Wmove> > <Bmove>Nc6</Bmove> > </turn> > ... ></game> > >Yep, this standard would be a **whole** lot more chatty...that is the biggest >downside of XML. But the fact that any ol' computer can read it w/o writing a >bunch of code is the upside and humans can still follow it pretty well. > >The existing PGN notation schema (i.e. the rules to follow when writing a PGN >document) could be converted to an XML Schema fairly simply - let's call this >new XML language PGN-XML. Since it is a new language we could throw in some >bones to non-chess games as well (no problem since XML is intrinsically >extensible.) An add some tags for clock control...optional naturally. > >Then some sharp cats could write a PGN to PGN-XML converter. > >In any event, this is a radical approach to a simple extention to the PGN >standard. Does anyone besides me see some merit in this? Instead of XML, why not make a SQL definition? SQL->XML conversion already exists, so the XML stuff would be free. and XML is *way* too chatty.
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.