Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 02:13:49 07/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2005 at 04:54:58, F. Huber wrote: >On July 28, 2005 at 04:38:17, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: > >>On July 28, 2005 at 03:56:07, F. Huber wrote: >> >>>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´?) >> >>Franz, >> >>such nonsense would neither be helpful nor underline your point of view. >> >>>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! >> >>a) there has been a world of Chess960 applications before FRC-Shredder, >>b) it is in fact Shredder now establishing an incompatible FEN, >>c) I myself have suggested some compromises, SMK none but refuted all. >> >>>Please forgive us dumb, small idiots ... >> >>You are searching egocentric people at the wrong place. First learn the >>meaning of the word compatibility, then try to join a serious discussion. >> >>Reinhard. >There´s no need for further discussions with you, Reinhard - > >I´ve finally accepted your infallibility ... ;-) > >Franz. Franz, don't behave like a child. You are definitely wrong in your assumptions. As a matter of fact I point to a made change in 10x8 X-FEN. Here originally a '0' had represented 10 empty fields. But some other chess friends knowing about the FFEN approach convinced me to better use "10" instead. Therefore 10x8 X-FEN has been changed. If currently a compromise would be thinkable encoding inner Rooks with castling rights a different way, there of course would be a way to do that, because such positions still have been encoded very rarely, and there would be no big problem of compatibility especially towards existing game PGNs. But as I have to repeat, it is SMK with his Shredder insisting to stay imcompatible refuting such proposed compromises. Thus you are addressing your polemic to an absolutely unmatching target. 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.