Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 04:41:25 07/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2005 at 07:03:54, Sune Fischer wrote: Hi Sune, >I guess i can understand why you are upset, but AFAIK there has never been a >public (democratic!) debate about this so anarchy isn't surprising. For some >reason it seems your proposal has just not caught on, so maybe it's a good idea >to try something else.. > >My engine does not know the difference between chess and FRC, there is no >difference, thus far I agree with you. > >Some might decide on a different design, so I have no problem with a GUI that >puts the engine into a formal FRC-state. I intend to ignore that part of the >protocol completely and I suggest you do the same. Honestly I see no harm done. > >My only concern is all the old tools (e.g. winboard, SCID) that doesn't >understand any FRC fen formal. The engine has to realize when the castle rights >coincide with regular chess and then output FENs as KQkq for maximum >portability. Well, switching an engine into differnt mode is merely a detail. But producing differnt FEN and PGN of course isn't. A complete chess game encoded in PGN never would use a '[SetUp="1"]' tag, and a traditional FEN encoded position only would have castling rights connected to well known K-R positions. Thus most chess programs scan FEN for traaditional legality of the encoded position, there could not be a big problem facing also Chess960 FENs and PGNs. The X-FEN approach is not causing any incompatibility problems, like the new approach with Shredder FEN does. Reinhard.
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.