Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 13:19:38 07/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2005 at 09:15:27, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >On July 15, 2005 at 08:45:41, Richard Pijl wrote: Typical that you chose not to respond on the IMHO good reasons not to adapt to your suggestions. >Why has there been a need to frustrate those who already have written PGN >viewers for Chess960, what about the matching online chess servers, slowly >growing databases storing Chess960 PGN games? And files with all 960 starting >positions encoded as FEN now have been made incompatible, too, without any need. Drama again. Few hours of work and you can read both FEN formats in your program. And for those that haven't started yet, there is now a better format to use than there was before. No need to find out ambiguities, no scans for finding rooks etc.. And don't try to say that I don't know what I'm talking about as I have both an UCI-engine (still private, not the Baron) and a database program (also private) that support Chess960. >I am not able to understand that. Very, very early I have supported SMK with a >lot of information on that. Why has it not been possible to move towards an >agreement avoiding such trouble? Actually, Stefan listens to many persons. I was also one of those he discussed this with. And I'm pretty sure Rudolf Huber, as UCI-coauthor, is also one of them. I know Stefan (and Rudolf) as someone who thinks before he does something. I'm sure he listened to you, and chose to use a different (IMHO better) approach. >I have been quiet beside that internal >discussion until facts have been established by Shredder. I am not responsible >for the actual public discussed controverse situation. Who's making all that noise then? Richard.
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.