En passant : who is guilty ?
Posted:
23 Oct 2005, 09:39
by Olivier Deville
In a game between Tristram and Zotron that was just played, after Zotron played b7-b5, Tristram wanted to take en passant with a5xb6, which was a legal move.
Tristram sent the following move :
839500<1:move axb6 ep
There was no reaction from Arena and Tristram lost on time.
Who is guilty ? Tristram for sending its move in non-standard format, or Arena for not transmitting this move to the opponent ?
Olivier
Re: En passant : who is guilty ?
Posted:
23 Oct 2005, 10:30
by Richard Pijl
From the Winboard Standard:
Your engine is making the move MOVE. Do not echo moves from xboard with this command; send only new moves made by the engine.
For the actual move text from your chess engine (in place of MOVE above), your move should be either
* in coordinate notation (e.g., e2e4, e7e8q) with castling indicated by the King's two-square move (e.g., e1g1), or
* in Standard Algebraic Notation (SAN) as defined in the Portable Game Notation standard (e.g, e4, Nf3, O-O, cxb5, Nxe4, e8=Q), with the extension piece@square (e.g., P@f7) to handle piece placement in bughouse and crazyhouse.
xboard itself also accepts some variants of SAN, but for compatibility with non-xboard interfaces, it is best not to rely on this behavior.
From the PGN standard:
En passant captures do not have any special notation; they are formed as if the captured pawn were on the capturing pawn's destination square.
Re: En passant : who is guilty ?
Posted:
23 Oct 2005, 14:16
by Olivier Deville
Thanks Richard !
So it seems that Tristram is culprit for adding the unnecessary "ep" mention to the move.
Olivier