FEN is sort of the equivalent of PGN, but for positions instead of game scores - a text format designed to be readable by both programs and humans, and open to all programs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsyth-Edwards_Notation

Most chess programs have a function for creating FENs. For example, the "Copy position" function in Chessbase will produce a FEN string of the current position, which you can then paste into a text file, web form, other program etc. etc.

Also if, you look at a pgn file with "games" that don't start from the starting position (exercises, game excerpts, endgame positions etc.), you will notice that the PGN format uses FEN to specify the position.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 09/03/14 at 09:19:42:


Let me make a wild guess that the bits on a2 and a7 were meant to be pawns (B for Bauer in German or bonde in Scandinavian languages) rather than bishops. It's easy to forget something when "translating" piece letters.

That would give us this position instead:

motörhead wrote on 09/02/14 at 22:08:02:


Just click on the little board icon, and then paste the fen code, thus:



when it appears that Black's king is in check...

Just one question: Why is it good to mimic Wikipedia when it comes to chess evaluations? They are hardly the definitive source on chess matters. 

As others have pointed out, the computer programmers have created a very refined system for giving numeric evaluations to the various pawns and structural weaknesses. Unless you're interested in programming, humans don't need this sort of rubric. Humans can tell the relative worth of pawns in a specific position without resorting to counting tenths or hundredths of pawns.

Agreed. What you really need to know is not how much doubled pawns are worth, but what to do in various configurations once you or your opponent has them, and therefore how to recognize where they are good and where not.  That is knowledge for a human being.

I can also recommend Euwe and Kramer, The Middlegame: Book One and Silman, Reassess Your Chess. Botvinnik's work, for example Botvinnik's Best Games, Volume 1, contains a virtual seminar on how to play when you have weak pawns, since he often voluntarily assumed them as a way to beat his opponents. He also knew how to evaluate a position better than anyone else--and how to communicate its essence to human beings, namely in language.

Uhohspaghettio wrote on 08/26/14 at 00:00:01:


Thx for the insightful post. You think, I’m guessing. Ah… And as you think so, it seems your thoughts turn to become the truth in your head, isn’t it?!

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Just look at the topic given here and then look what you’re dealing with.

The topic was & is doubled pawn structures, basing on a Wikipedia text and a book by Berliner. And you? You’re discussing about the author Berliner, his career, the content of his book up to the opening topics in it (as kylemeister did).

That means you fail by far  to meet the topic. That’s boring for those interested in the very topic.

For your thought about me guessing: I own a copy of that Berliner book. I know of the discussions on the book all to well. But at least his book was published by Gambit, not known to publish every rubbish dealt to them.

And to me not all the content is flawed. As not every remark by Chernev and Reinfeld is superficial (I own books of them too). To me it seems that Berliner was surely the better and more insightful chess player than the both. But besides any comparisons: If you look at the writings with an open mind, you can even profit from a second or third or even lesser rated resource. Just don’t believe them slavishly. Think for yourself.

And to my feeling that’s just what Marc tried.

But now look what happened to his questions. 8 of the 11 posts do not touch the topic the slightest but deal with behavior of the participants.

But as ReneDescartes put it:

ReneDescartes wrote on 08/25/14 at 20:15:04:


And I just ask to respect this. We all would have more from it without a backseat driver behavior. It just keeps away newbies from the forum when they are treated as offensive as here (“Can you explain WHY? Your questions are all just bizarre.”…).

motörhead wrote on 08/25/14 at 19:18:00:


lol, I think you are guessing. Berliner certainly is not as good a source as them. Berliner was an IM and world champion at correspondence chess and an accomplished computer programmer. He was not known as an influential theoretician.

He tried translating his findings in engine programming to chess. It never took off or found favour, nobody of note advocates it afaik, though to give him due respect it was probably worth a shot. 

Furthermore that's on wikipedia as a brief outline of his ideas and theories. If you really want to follow up on it then why don't you actually buy his book? In his book I'm sure it's explained properly, he did not put it public domain.   

Marc Benford wrote on 08/25/14 at 14:52:31:


I think an average bonus or malus isn't possible. It all simply depends to much on the other factors influencing the position. So you can only judge it from position to position.
The rank reached, vulnerabilty, promotion, defensive tasks, connection, mobility of own/contrahent's pieces etc. etc.