Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 15:56:59 06/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2004 at 18:00:10, Sune Fischer wrote: >On June 09, 2004 at 16:30:20, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On June 09, 2004 at 16:19:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Why not think about this in the reverse way: >>> >>>The moves have a single internal to XML format, but then they can be converted >>>to anything someone wants. I personally prefer SAN because that is how books >>>and things are published, excepting those that use figurine notation. But let's >>>not allow XML to be all things to all people. Let's make it a standard with >>>appropriate conversion utilities so that someone requiring the brain-dead e2e4 >>>notation can extract the games in that format and use them... >>> >>>If we don't pick a single internal standard, then this isn't going to work, >>>because I too will write my own parser, and I don't want to deal with multiple >>>move formats. If I don't like what is being used, I want a tool that will >>>convert to what I want. And since everyone will not agree on a single format, >>>let's pick one for the standard and give conversion tools to make everyone >>>happy. >>> >>>Parsing SAN is _not_ hard. There is public code to do that in the epd kit as >>>well as inside Crafty itself. Since the PGN standard specifies algebraic and >>>allows SAN as well, that seems like a reasonable start (note that Algebraic is >>>the Ng1f3 type moves, not just g1f3) that is sometimes needed to resolve >>>ambituities in SAN moves.) > >Parsing in SAN has got to be the most difficult way of doing it, the moves >require a move generator to be read and written correctly. > >Think of those who wants to code a small pgn viewer in java or something, they >have to start with a move generator ie. practicly write half a chess program. > >That's completely unnecessary with a simpler format. > >>The e2e4 format is terrible because it is difficult to read for humans (uh, what >>piece did he move?). > >Yes I also think it's terrible for humans, but for internal handling it's much >more practical. > >> Admittedly parsing SAN is not hard (Zappa has a SAN parser) >>but Long algebraic (Nf3xe5) is easier for humans and computers both. > >Long SAN is never used in books or in human notations afaik, so it's not >something people is used to, hence it's not as good as SAN for humans, I think. > >But it is a good compromise if you want some readability while avoiding the SAN >hassle. > >-S. >>anthony I think long san should be very easy for anyone used to san to pick up. It's only the addition of 2 characters. Note that the long san move contains all of the information of an e2-e4 style move. anthony
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.