Author: Andreas Herrmann
Date: 13:12:24 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
>Hi Andreas, > >i think Rcf2 is not incorrect here, don't considering invalid moves due to >pinned pieces. Better to have redundant rather than missing information. Your >SAN-parser should handle both Rcf2 and Rf2 correctly (but not Rff2 ;-) >I guess writing the move is more or less implementation depending, even if an >exact definition about this issue exists. > >Regards, >Gerd Hi Gerd, yes you are right. Holmes also accepts moves without the check "+" or "checkmate "#" characters or with the remark characters "!" or "?". But in the above case i have problems, because in the root i generate only legal moves (no pseudolegal ones). And from all possible legal moves i generates a SAN, a LAN and coordinate notation list to compare them with the input move. If the input is not a legal move (SAN, LAN or coordinate input) than i try to delete or add the above characters (+,#,!,?) and compare again, that's no problem. To produce a notation like Rcf2 i have to generate also pseudolegal moves in the root, because only in this case i have 2 possible rook moves to the same target square. I think this extra work stands in no relation to this rare case. have a nice day Andreas PS: Have you heard something from Jochen, because he stands not in the IPCCC participants list? So i'm fighting only with Matador for the "Rote Laterne" next year :-)
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.