Fen with repeated tokens in castling field accepted as valid
nortti opened this issue · 1 comments
nortti commented
E.g. rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KKqq - 0 1
Considering that a field like qK is rejected even though it could easily be accepted, I think it would be consistent to reject other technically invalid fields unless it's needed to accommodate variants.
niklasf commented
It's not needed for any of the supported variants, but my first instinct is to relax the parser nonetheless. Going with that, for now ...