Author: F. Huber
Date: 00:56:07 07/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2005 at 18:31:12, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >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. Your Majesty, (or should I better call you ´God´?) once again I´ve forgotten, that your opinion is the one and only truth in our whole universe (and maybe also in all parallel universes, if they exist) - I´m so sorry about having ignored this fact! Please forgive us dumb, small idiots ... Franz.
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.