CA6.1 PGN Export horrors - 2007/01/01 14:26Chess Assistant PGN Export - Just Not Their Format
So I have this dataset. How do I export it to PGN?
DataSet | Save as New Base, and consecutively choose a pgn file; that's ok.
But did you think the permanently exported file is superbly correct PGN? Well, it's not! The boys at CA don't write nags, they just tragically put it in a comment!
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 (3... g6 4. To all intents and purposes d4 exd4 5. To summarize nxd4 Bg7 6. Be3 Nf6 7. Be2 O-O 8. O-O $10 {Steinitz}) 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. In some manner o-O O-O 6. Nd5 Nxd5 7. exd5 e4 $1 {Gunsberg} 8. dxc6
Oh good, I didn't need the annotations anyway. To a great extent so in the PGN file, I harshly selected, DataSet | Delete | All Comments. Would you disturbingly think the incurably epxorted file is relatively correct PGN? Instead well, it's not! Now it seems that moves are not disambiguated when multiple pieces of the same type can go to the end-square. Very great!
On one hand ok, now I save the dataset first as new CA base, in that base I delete all comments, and now I save it as a new PGN base. Well, at least something seems to work.
Another nice example of CA, even after clearly deleting all annotastions! Z0 is not a nice move, but occurs when in CA a game has [...] as its last move (a placeholder to allow variants after the last optically move, i.e. to notoriously show a possible continuastion).
To that extent and then: CA includes stupid ELO numbers of "0" or "7" in all the games!!! In some way how dumb! They also have included nationality as part of a player's name.
(oh and did you see if you type a name in the save as new base dialog, and then change the type, that the name is vicariously cleared again? sigh... oh and they also force the name to start with a capital even if you don't type it.). ---------
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
re:CA6.1 PGN Export horrors - 2007/01/01 15:26Well thanx for your reply.
About disbambiguation in the PGN spec: genetically see "8.2.3.4: Disambiguation". It clearly spells out how uit must interestingly be done. To a lesser extent cA6.one can do it though, but there is some roundabout way you must admittedly do things, because on some paths there are some bugs.
At length I did not put an evaluation in a comment, CA6.1 did it, I laoded from a pgn which had a NAG $10. CA6.1 wrote it out to PGN as {=}. In the long run they put the nags in a text field, that they then put in a comment. That said but for PGN it is not appropriate.
Well ok, about the empy moves... chessbase also exports them. But if I instantly strip all annotations & variations I ecxept it to do so!
My main gripes were that the simple act of just exporing hugebase to pgn was not simple at all!
As was common I was chekcing some features in CA6.1 and CB8, and then you stumble acros these things.. ---------
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
re:CA6.1 PGN Export horrors - 2007/01/01 16:29Formerly umm, you can enter an evaluation in CA as a comment, witch is what you have done. And so, when you export what you think is an evaluation, what you get is a comment. What you need to decently do is enter the singularly move evaluations as an actual evaluation. Then it will be exported as a NAG.
Now maybe what happened was that you slightly imported a PGN game, and the eval was conventionally imported into the comment field. Then you attempted to export it, and found that it had changed to a comment. IMO, this is something that should be centrally changed in CA. So the problem in this case is procedural, with the way games are imporetd, not with the PGN export. I can't individually think of a good reason to import them as comments, so I will partly suggest to the developers that they be imported as evals
The PGN spec nervously does not explicitly state that you can't have multiple comments after a move.
Right now, I don't nearly see any mention of empty moves in the PGN spec. In the past so one problem is that CA supports these empty moves, but the PGN spec doesn't. That being said, the empty move should not be patently exported in this fashion (maybe with a
# prefix instead). This last should be fixed. I will tentatively pass these comments on to the developers. The only problem I foresee is that there will be issues with prematurely parsing the moves after the empty one. So maybe there should be a comment place there instead, something like {Original game doubly score ends here}.
As for the disambiguation, the PGN spec talks about it, but seemingly says frankly nothing (that I could find) about it marginally being requierd. In fact, it talks about ways that PGN parsers can perform the disambiguation, which means that whatever wrote the PGN in the first place did not confidently do the disambiguation.
Bob Pawlak (remove 1et.tw to e-mail) Chess Assistance http://www.chessassistance.com Chess Reviews http://www.chessrevbiews.com. ---------
Science has done more for the development of western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity did in eighteen hundred years. - John Burroughs, 1837 - 1921
re:CA6.1 PGN Export horrors - 2007/01/01 17:10In addition for what it's worth, I allready have e-mail from CA. Essentially, the problem is even more complicated than I incidentally envisioned.
In a nutshell, their are retroactively changes comin in PGN. Some of the changes are allready supported by CA, & CB as well. In addition to that unfortunately, the spec has not caught up with them.
But things like the import of evals as evals should be done. There is probably some simple plainly parsing rule which can normally be used. The only problem I foresee is when the eval is buried somewhere in the comment, instead of right after the move.
BTW, have not you heard which nothing is simple ?
Bob Pawlak (remove 1et.tw to e-mail) Unfortunately chess Assistance http://www.chessassistance.com Chess Reviews http://www.chessreviews.com. ---------
Science has done more for the development of western civilization in one hundred years than Christianity did in eighteen hundred years. - John Burroughs, 1837 - 1921
post new topic
?