[Standards-JIG] New version of chess game protocol
Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr.
darco at deepdarc.com
Thu Oct 5 18:44:49 UTC 2006
On Oct 2, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Mridul wrote:
> 1) Time related attributes.
> There are a whole series of timing considerations in chess games :
> sec per move , fischer time control , primary/secondary/etc time
> controls of time per x moves , etc : and different UI's support
> different subsets of these.
Simple: XEP-0091, jabber:x:delay
> 2) There are variations of chess where more than 2 players play -
> this is not handled by the spec I believe (refer to 3).
I personally know of a four player version of chess which is
absolutely fascinating to play. However, I believe that it is patented.
> 5) There is a standard way to represent chess positions : FEN
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth-Edwards_Notation) for normal
> chess , X-FEN(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-FEN) and shredder FEN
> for fischer random chess - not sure about other variants.
> Similarly , for communicating games , there is a PGN standard format.
> It would make sense not to invent another format - all UI's I know
> support FEN already.
> Btw , the 'piece' attribute could be considered broken from a chess
> point of view actually.
I thought about doing this when I came up with my "back of the
napkin" chess protocol a while back. However, after looking into it a
bit more closely, these notations would require a somewhat more
complicated parser to interpret. The protocol should be as simple as
possible to encourage implementation, and I think that using Forsyth-
Edwards notation would add an unnecessary level of implementation
complexity to the bare minimum chess client. Perhaps we could
recommend for the client to include the Forsyth-Edwards notion in the
> 7) Might be useful to add a move number to gameflow. Also , it does
> not consider extra semantics necessary for (3) above ...
Move numbers I think is a good idea. This would allow clients to
perform some basic sanity checking.
> 8) I am not very sure of the client's managing spectating ... might
> make more sense for the server or external component to manage this
> (I mention this under gamesessions actually).
I agree. I think that MUC rooms should be used for this purpose. This
would allow side chatting, logging, moderation, etc. It also follows
the spirit of XEP-0143.
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail: darco at deepdarc.com
More information about the Standards