Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 01:33:21 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 09, 2004 at 16:19:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Parsing SAN is _not_ hard. Perhaps not extremely hard, but still an unnecessary complication, IMHO. A format like "g1f3" or "Ng1f3" is closer to the internal representation of moves in almost all chess-related programs. I find it hard to believe that there is a big number of programs which actually stores only the type of piece and the destination square, and adds more information only when it's necessary to avoid ambiguity. By using SAN, you make life more difficult for the programs which produce the files as well as for programs which read the files. The programs which produce the files are forced to convert it's internal from-to representation of moves to SAN, and the programs which read the files have to reverse the process. This seems really silly to me. SAN is only a good idea when the information is presented to the user. It has no place in file formats which are not designed to be read by humans, nor in engine communication protocols. >There is public code to do that in the epd kit as well as inside Crafty >itself. I am not sure what the "epd kit" is, but if you are referring to the epd*.c and epd*.h files by Steven J. Edwards which are included in the Crafty source code, they are unusable to the majority of chess programmers because of their gigantic size. The epd*.* files alone are bigger than the complete source code of my engine, despite the fact that my code has grown very bloated. Tord
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.