Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 15:31:12 07/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2005 at 18:05:52, F. Huber wrote: >On July 27, 2005 at 17:46:22, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>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. > >"impossible" is actually WRONG - "improbable" would be the correct word! > >>There are less than 1/1000000 of positions having an inner castling enabled rook >>alone, so such constructable positions are even more irrelevant. > >"irrelevant"? Well, 1/1000000 of all possible chess positions (about 10^38 IIRC) >are still quite a lot! >You see: NONE of your arguments really convince ANYONE! > >Franz. How would you know? compatibility to 960 relevant Chess960 starting positions is ignored by Shredder, whereas X-FEN is able to face some compromises in that addressed point, whether you call it relevant or irrelevant does not matter at all. 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.