Author: Mark Boylan
Date: 01:07:05 03/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On March 04, 2006 at 02:56:12, Keith Kitson wrote: >Just reading through the thread on Opening books, proposals etc. it strikes me >that we are in danger of presenting the solution before we have a firm grip on >requirements....always a dangerous approach. > Good point. >My suggestion for the requirements of the software would be: > >1. A stand-a-lone system portable to all platforms I agree. >2. Able to accept all formats of opening book and convert to any other >recognised format Not all formats are known or freely licensable. One standard format would be ideal. >3. Software written to enable easy addition of new formats by developer I suggest a reference implementation that can be used intact or adapted for the application. But I still feel that a standard file format is needed. >4. Comprehensive editing facilities > >These requirements are independent of the language to be used to write the >application. > A variety of reference implementations can be provided. >I suspect the main problem is justifying the writing of a system and finding a >developer/s to write and implement. > I don't know. From the response, I'd say that lots of people are and popular interest is the best justification. >Perhaps if this were made a commercial concern, i.e. with a cost for the package >it may be viable to write and support such an application. > Many bigger projects than this have been completed without comercial justification. Think Apache. >I'm not sure if there would be any contravention of owners existing book format >rights if a package was written to match the above requirements. i.e. would >chessbase complain about catering for their book format etc. > >KK I don't think that the idea should be to leverage an existing format, commercial or otherwise. I think the best format is one that has yet to be defined. I understand Dann's point of view with leveraging SQL. But I really don't think we're talking about a storage format here. I think we're talking about a format for exchange. I think that SQL is the perfect solution for a chess database, engine UI, or book authoring system to store data. But when I want to send a friend an opening book, it should be a simple file in a well known format. The PGN specification has some unavoidable problems. For instance, it is impossible to tell if the "Fischer, Robert" in a particular game is a resident of Iceland who was once world champion, or Bob, the club player who lives down the street. Without requiring them to sign the file with public keys, it's any database's guess. But somehow, the PGN has stood the test of time as the ultimate format for the exchange of chess games. That's because it's easy to use and it does the job as well as any format can. Opening books are less ambiguous than game databases. A chess position is a chess position no matter how you write it, no matter how you encode it. Opening books are really just trees of positions and evaluations. What's needed is a format for exchange that's easy to use and does the job as well as any format can. I think we need a PBN format. (Portable Book Format)
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.