Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 13:43:17 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 15:47:35, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On June 10, 2004 at 15:29:50, Andrew Wagner wrote: > >>On June 10, 2004 at 15:05:28, Jon Dart wrote: >> >>>On June 10, 2004 at 14:59:38, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On June 10, 2004 at 14:45:04, Andrew Wagner wrote: >>>> >>>>>I think we >>>>>should stay away from anything that uses PNBRQK within the notation, and shoot >>>>>for as much simplicity as possible. >>>> >>>>As Dan Honeycutt pointed out in the other thread, coordinate notation still >>>>requires NBQR for promotions, ex. e7e8Q. >>> >>>Plus, my $0.02 is that we already have a good standard for moves (SAN). Why >>>change to something else? >>> >>>--Jon >> >>For the reasons I mentioned, lower overhead (much easier to code for coordinate >>notation), and because it avoids using PNBRQK, which helps in the international >>community. > > >I don't agree to coordinate notation. I would rather see something more readable >for the "normal" chessplayer (and programmer). Most of us are used to PNBRQK by >reading chess books. And I like to play the first few moves in my head to see >what game/opening I'm dealing with even when managing raw data. > >I'm also not very happy with SAN. It's probably the most readable for humans, >but as mentioned before not the easiest to implement. For the raw data I would >prefer a "long" format, because it's always simpler to write a parser that >leaves things awas than a parser that has to restore things. > >As a compromise, I find long algebraic the best, something like Nf3xg5+, d7-d8q > >my personal opinion >Andy To me this seems incredibly obvious, but our opinion appears to be the minority. 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.