Author: Robert Ericsson
Date: 05:17:18 09/11/01
Go up one level in this thread
Before going wild about this, let's remember that this is a _proposal_ for a new
_extended_ PGN Standard. You can read the whole proposal here:
ftp://palamede.com/pub/chess/final.txt
Regards Robert
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).
>
>I know who some of these people are, but not all of them. DGT makes chess
>boards, CA and CB are well-known, and Palamede looks like it's just a chess
>website.
>
>There are many topics for discussion here:
>
>1) Is Steven J. Edwards out, and if so, is this how ownership of the standard is
>supposed to be passed?
>
>2) Is this a fait-accompli since Chessbase and Chess Assistant have apparently
>signed on to this?
>
>3) Does anyone have anything to say about the changes proposed? Are they good
>changes?
>
>I don't know who started this effort, but the main point seems to be to design a
>way that the time on the clock after each move can be recorded in PGN. There is
>no sensible way to do this now, so they use pseudo-comments to do this.
>
>A possible problem is that they are overloading their clock-time tag already.
>It is both a command to the viewer, which presumably could be displayed however
>the viewer wants to display it, and as an embedded argument (I can't think of
>another way to say this) to a normal comment. Meaning that we have this:
>
>{[%clk 1:03:23]}
>
>and this:
>
>{White is in time pressure since he only has [%clk 0:00:22] left.}
>
>The first is just a directive to the viewer, the second is essentially telling
>the viewer to embed the time in a comment and display it.
>
>This makes me uneasy, because in this case, I think that the all that is
>probably needed is the directive form. There are other cases where these
>pseudo-comments should end up being embedded in textual comments, so perhaps I
>am being worried for no reason, but I'm still concerned that there could be a
>rush to change the spec so that DGT and CB/CA can solve a technical problem, and
>everyone else could pay for this due to a broken or poorly designed set of PGN
>extensions.
>
>Is this the way the PGN standard should go?
>
>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.