I know what you asked. Scid, as most of the chess utilities around,
can't parse these PGN. I suspect you know that too, hence the
rhetorical question.
My point is that the PGN specification allows for annotations before
the end of game marker. Scid and most chess utilities can't do that
yet. Hence my proposition that Scid does not respect that tiny bit of
the PGN specification.
My guess is that it would take some work to take care of that glitch,
since Scid implements RAV and comments quite differently. From PGN
standpoint, both are simply annotations.
What is being asked is quite understandable. Not only it would help
maintaining incomplete games, as in correspondance chess, but it would
improve the implementation of the specification. That last argument
is the only one I surmised. Besides, stating it was also a way to
explain that this demand, however natural, underlines a technical
problem that is not trivial.
So either some programmer come up with a great idea about how to deal
with the glitch, or come up with some conventional way to deal with
it. As for myself, I usually :
1. Enter a comment, saying that the next half-move I enter is a dumb
one, for instance :
{DELETE NEXT MOVE!}
2. Then I enter a really dumb half-move, to be sure that if the
comments get stripped I can tell it's a dumb half-move ;
3. Backtracking one half-move, can enter all the variations I want.
Conventions are the easiest way to deal with comments anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
