Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:00:47 02/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 1999 at 16:46:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >The e.p. squares on an EPD position seem to be generated (according to the >standard) whether they can have some effect or not. This has one result of >causing many more distinct positions than really do exist. Perhaps this >accelerates move generation or ??? > >What is the rationale behind always generating the e.p. square on a two square >pawn hop, even if there is no guard to take it? I wouldn't be surprised if the standard is flexible here. I don't think it should be, as long as it's going to use standard algebraic to describe a move. I mean, it's a lot of work for some people to emit "Ne2" rather than "Nge2" when there is both a c3 knight and a g1 knight, and the c3 knight is pinned to the king by a Bb4. I don't disagree that this work should be done. Why not also go to the trouble to verify that a non-empty en-passant implies that an en-passant move is legal? Same with castling flags. And why is not all of the FEN included? There should be a move number and a 50-move counter. Additionally, I don't believe it's strictly legal to put a ";" following the FEN, which makes it annoying to try to take an EPD file and break it up with editor macros. bruce
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.