Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 05:44:55 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2004 at 08:30:37, Michel Langeveld wrote: >>Well I have been to fast. Take this: >> >>[FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/////PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQCKABNR w AC KQkq - 0 1"] >> >>because of 10 empty squares in a row. (I would support only one char numbers and >>therfore /91/ for an empty line or skipping trailing free squares in a row. > >Empty fields >============ >Both options // or /10/ violates against the specification. Section 16.1.4 ok then. let's become more compatible. >"Empty squares are represented by the digits one through eight"; > >Both versions have advantages and disadvantages. >I prefer more the 2nd personally but I can live with both. > >I hope the specication can be changed into something like: >"Empty squares are represented by a number > 0"; -------------------------------------------------- Well, we just have to be downwards compatible only. -------------------------------------------------- add '9' for 9 empty fields, '0' for 10 empty fields. Both never would apply in classic chess FEN positions. >The AC option >============= >The AC option also violates according to the specification 16.1.6 > >"The third field represents castling availability. This indicates potential >future castling that may of may not be possible at the moment due to blocking >pieces or enemy attacks". It is not violating when used in traditional chess positions, for which it has been specified, because that group will be empty then. And conventional chess engines would never be able to handle such really extended FENs at all, so it does not matter. Regards, Reinhard.
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.