Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 14:46:22 07/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2005 at 15:28:33, Joseph Tadeusz wrote: >One point of view is that Steven Edwards made a mistake by choosing the >inflexible KQ notation for FEN, wich has now been corrected by SMK. > >What you do with X-FEN is a workaround wich can lead to abberations like > > KgQbkgqc impossible in played games. Show me one game with three equal colored rooks. There are less than 1/1000000 of positions having an inner castling enabled rook alone, so such constructable positions are even more irrelevant. >instead of the clean > > GBgc Nevertheless this point is subject of refuted compromises. Because there will be nearly no PGNs starting from such positions, changing X-FEN design in that irrelevant point would be no problem, if leading to a compromise. But it will make no sense to change it and have no compromise anyway. The most relevant part of X-FEN is declared in: http://www.chessbox.de/xfen.html 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.