Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 07:54:24 02/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 06, 2002 at 07:12:57, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On February 06, 2002 at 06:35:22, Hans van der Zijden wrote: > >>With white to move Fritz thinks white is just a little bit better and it gives >>the move R1e2, which is strange because there is only 1 rook that can go to e2. > >Fritz _may_ be correct. I'm not 100% sure I remember it correctly, >but I don't think the SAN standard specifies that you don't have to >disambiguate moves if some of them are not actually legal due to >checks. Unfortunately not true. SAN talks about legal moves, only, and thus disambiguates only between legal moves: 8.2.3.4: Disambiguation [...] Note that the above disambiguation is needed only to distinguish among moves of the same piece type to the same square; it is not used to distinguish among attacks of the same piece type to the same square. An example of this would be a position with two white knights, one on square c3 and one on square g1 and a vacant square e2 with White to move. Both knights attack square e2, and if both could legally move there, then a file disambiguation is needed; the (nonchecking) knight moves would be "Nce2" and "Nge2". However, if the white king were at square e1 and a black bishop were at square b4 with a vacant square d2 (thus an absolute pin of the white knight at square c3), then only one white knight (the one at square g1) could move to square e2: "Ne2". This is considered a design bug by some, but it is the current state of affairs. >-- >GCP Cheers, Heiner
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.