Enter Your Reply

H. G. Muller raises an important point concerning the difficulty of having
universal move notation standards for all games. In different games, the
same notation can have different effects on the game. Compare 1. P e2-e4
in both Chess and Magnetic Chess, just to give one example. In order to
support just about any Chess variant, Game Courier supports the most basic
of move primitives. It lets you string together a series of move primitives
to handle any type of complex movement possible in a game. This is good
inasmuch as it makes Game Courier a universal Chess variant platform, but
it can get tiresome to play a game like Magnetic Chess this way.
Therefore, Game Courier also supports automation via its GAME Code
programming language. A game preset can be programmed to handle all the
stuff that is supposed to happen automatically when a piece is moved. If
we have a universal standard that works equally well for all abstract
games, especially if we are looking for one that will work with a dumb
game viewer, then we may have to settle for a standard full of move
primitives that describe complex moves in full detail. Yet that seems
undesirable. It would be best to record only the moves players make, then
rely on the rules of the game to imply the consequences of those moves,
such as whether other pieces get moved, captured, etc. Doing this much
seems fine to me. Where I would draw the line is at having a notation that
cannot be deciphered except by knowing the rules and the board position.
PGN uses notation of this sort. For example, Ne5 tells me that a Knight is
to move to e5, but it doesn't tell me where the Knight is coming from. So
here is what I would advocate in a movement notation standard: Let the
notation clearly describe the player's move without depending on any game
specific knowledge, but allow the use of game specific knowledge for
deducing any additional changes to the game state that are automatically
consequences of the move.