Author: Michel Langeveld
Date: 05:59:57 01/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
>-------------------------------------------------- >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. Then you are compatible with the fact that the empty field indicator is one character. And that is not enforced by the specification. Enforced is a number from 1 to 8 and this results in that it is one character now. It is never possible to write correct PGN games without changing the PGN specification. The '0' option is functional bad. This is the order I prefer: [FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/pppppppppp/RNBQCKABNR"] [FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/////pppppppppp/RNBQCKABNR"] [FEN "rnbqckabnr/pppppppppp/0/0/0/0/pppppppppp/RNBQCKABNR"] and I can live with the 2nd. I am curious what Steve Edward's opinion is about this. He maintainces the standard. Michel
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.