Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 08:51:33 10/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2005 at 23:48:42, Bruce Moreland wrote: >As far as I know there has been no revision to the standard for ten years. >Please correct me if I am wrong, and I would love to be wrong. > >Problems: > >1) No clear definition of export standard. Is there one writer that is >considered the standard? > >2) NAGs do not correlate well with Informant/ECO symbols. There are some ECO >meanings that don't exist, and other NAGs are ambiguous in that context. This >sounds like a trivial problem, but it causes hell if you try to write something >that reads PGN, converts to some sane format for editing, and then write it back >out to PGN. > >3) The standard allows comments in stupid places, some of which won't seem >stupid to some people. > >Assume you are parsing a file, and you find a comment. You really want to >attach it to a move. This is kind of hard to do if the comment follows the last >game in the file, if it occurs between games, occurs in the middle of a tag, >etc. > >Anyone else know of problems? Anyone else have any idea how to fix them? > >Last time I sent email to Steven J Edwards about this, he essentially told me >that great minds were working on it, and that I should shut up and go away. > >That was in about 1997. > >bruce Bruce, I hope you won't wait another 8 years for Steven and his "great minds". I'm still waiting for his "2004 North American CC Championship" to take place. :) You're very well respected in the computer chess community - if you write a proposal for fixing/extending PGN, it will probably be adopted. -Peter
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.