Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 02:10:07 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2003 at 20:10:34, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On January 31, 2003 at 18:27:10, David Rasmussen wrote:
>
>>It doesn't really make sense in FEN to be able to define the halfmove clock (or
>>whatever they call it), without being able to define the positions that went
>>before.
>
>In order to do that you *must* have the PGN for all the moves that occurred
>prior. {Or a list of all the previous FEN/EPD strings}
>
>FEN is not designed to show the entire game state. It's only a snapshot. You
>will need more data to know what has occured before hand.
>
>[snip]
Yeah, I thought that was what I was saying, wasn't it? But isn't it an
oversight, then? Or at least, the halfmove clock of the FEN specification should
be omitted at least. It cannot be used anyway to specify positions that have a
significant halfmove count (such as 90), because in such a position, repetitions
are immensely important.
/David
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.