Enter Your Reply

Well, you can be pretty sure that they will not agree to it if it is not
either upward compatible with, or highly superior to what they are already
using. What you propose on the IAGO site is neither.

For Chess variants, the existing PGN standard, with a few obvious
generalizations (e.g. to allow larger number of ranks and files, and other
letters for piece indicators), seems entirely satisfactory. Even games with
large player bases and a long tradition, like Xiangqi and Shogi, which have
their own notation systems, are starting to recognize he advantage of
algebraic nottion, and are embracing variations on Standard Algebraic
Notation. Now it exists next to th traditional notation, but Chess also
has alternative notations, such as the infamous descriptive notation
('N-KB3'), which are slowly but surely losing ground against SAN.

Where a player base is virtually non-existing, traditonal notation methods
(or in fact any notation method) might not exist, and any system will be
easily adapted.

So in short: to get wide-spread acceptance of a standard, first look to
the main-stream games, how they prefer to do it, and design something that
accomodates their wishes. Otherwise, failure is a guarantee. To a Chess
player, it will not seem an advntage that his saved game can be read by
software that plays Go, so his willingness to compromise to make that
easier will be zero.