Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 18:44:13 02/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2003 at 16:27:08, Russell Reagan wrote: >On February 01, 2003 at 14:50:41, David Rasmussen wrote: > >Ok I see your point. I don't think it's a big enough deal to change a standard >though. It will not matter in the vast majority of positions. Ignoring it or >not, no big deal usually. > What's the point of making a standard in the first place? Some of the main reasons are formality and conciseness. A chess positions standard is not important, really. It will not change the world in a big way. So the only hope one can have about a standard is for it to be concise and complete. In this case, the standard is not concise. My general life will not change much if the FEN standard changes, either way. But my chess life, and especially chess programming life will change in a fundamental way, since correctness is paramount to me, and the FEN specification is not accurate, and there is no reason for it not to be. There is no possible case where it is important or reasonable that it contains a halfmove clock. If it did not, my program would be simpler and more correct. Now it has to choose from a host of incorrect solutions. /David >>(A chess >>application XML specification would be a cool thing anyway, but that's another >>discussion). > >I think this would be a good idea too. Many technologies (PC, PDA, cell-phone, >etc.) are already implementing XML support, so this would be a nice thing to >have. > >What do you envision a chess XML looking like? I'm not quite there yet. A FEN without halfmove clock specified in XML would be close, though. /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.