Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:27:57 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2003 at 13:37:36, David Rasmussen wrote: >I am aware of all that. I am just saying that since for such positions, a fen is >necesary, that the halfmove clock shouldn't be part of the FEN specification, it >should always be assumed to be 0. A FEN with a halfmove clock other than 0 is >undefined or meaningless, in a sense. > >/David I look at it from the other way around. If a person posts a FEN string, it can be assumed that there have been no position repetitions, and then the fifty move counter does have some meaning. Otherwise the person posting should have posted the PGN, or is just trolling and trying to waste everyone's time. It is the fault of that person for not providing the necessary information, not the fault of the FEN standard. No need to change the FEN standard. That is what PGN is for. It seems like you are trying to change FEN into PGN. Just use PGN if you have such a prblem with FEN. The FEN string tries to contain as much useful information as is reasonably allowed to maintain a compact representation of a position. The game history removes the compact aspect. I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make or what result you are hoping to acheive. FEN serves it's purpose well, and for the instances where FEN is insufficient, there is PGN.
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.