When going through game histories the game move number counter
thingy doesn't correspond to what is normally regarded as a "move".
I mean it goes 1 after white's first go then 2 after black's first go
(instead of staying at 1 as it should). It stays at 2 after white's second
go (instead of changing up to 2) then changes to 3 after black's
second go.
Is there any chance this could be fixed? When going through a game
with someone as means of exploration/teaching purposes it is
confusing if I say "move 4" and the other person sees RHP
saying "move 4" to be something other than it really is.
Mark
The Squirrel Lover
I know!! That is why I never use the "email games" option...it is all
screwed up..I just replay it through ECTool and do it that way.
This would be a nice fix...as well as just using standard algebraic...i.e.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 rather than 1.e2-e4 e7-e5 2.g1-f3 b8-c6
That junk also annoys the crap outta me.
Dave
Agree about the move notation Dave, good point.
Also, seeing as though we're on this sort of topic...
Rank and file numbers and letters just next to the board would be
really, really useful for helping to teach people (as well as for people
who are tired/drunk/forgetful (delete as applicable)).
Mark
The Squirrel Lover
I have been begging them to do that for awhile...all of the people I
teach on here can't just look at b5 like I do and automatically go
b5...they have to map it out....plus when I go through a possible
variation Nxc7 Bxc7 Nd5 Bxh2 or what have you they think I am
speaking Greek
So yes notation on the board would help alot!
Dave
Actually the code is working as it was intended which is to show the
move you are about to make. Thus at the begining we are on move 1,
after White's first move, still 1, and after Black's first move - which
completes both halves of move 1 - it moves to move 2. This is
consistent with how it works when you are playing - the move number
reflects that which you are *about* to make. However, it is counter
intuitive during review and should be changed for that purpose.
Per Dave's comment, long notation (noting only from and to square)
is much easier to program (and faster to execute) than making the
program *smart* enough of the board configuration to translate that
into a shorter notation. Note, that for those not as well versed in
English, Nf3 might not translate well (Sf3, in German). It drives me
nuts as well but I imagine it is just a least common denominator trade-
off.
-ww-
the computational difficulty thing is totally true, especially for
ambiguous moves.
The language thing is solvable though, each user could set their
prefered symbol set and the notation used could just pick the correct
character for your language, somewhere the software has to look up
in a table what character to use for which piece, all it has to do is
change which table it uses depending on the viewing users preferred
language, nobody need ever see notation that confuses.