Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 02:35:12 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2003 at 05:10:07, David Rasmussen wrote:
>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.
Imagine a string of FEN/EPD positions that describe an entire game.
Within a chess program, you could do that. And then the halfmove clock would be
perfectly valid.
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.