Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 17:19:46 06/09/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2004 at 19:49:08, Russell Reagan wrote: >On June 09, 2004 at 19:20:30, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>I don't think we, as programmers, have the right to say to people "look you're >>just going to have to get used to reading it like this, because it's way easier >>for me to program this way". >> >>_We_ are the ones who have to conform, _not_ the general public. >>They just won't show any sympathy for your/our very technical and logical >>arguments :) > >I don't think "we" (engine programmers) have to conform to anything. All "we" >have to do is have our engines spit out "e2e4" and let the GUI convert it to >whatever format the user desires. > >We need to be clear on what we are discussing. We are discussing which notation >is best for a data standard. Not which is easier for us to read, or what is the >most popular with the general public. That is for the GUI programmers to worry >about. > >For a data standard, I don't think you can go wrong with coordinate notation, >"g1f3". It is simple. Everyone already supports it (or could support it in 5 >minutes, if that). It is the cleanest, most lightweight. We could add an 'N' on >to the front, but that is redundant. > >It is more of an issue of philosophy to me. If we are going to aim for >simplicity, then let's not waver from that unless there is a good reason. And there is a good reason: I as a programmer looking at the datafile have a much better understanding if there is an 'N' in front :) 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.