You are right. PGN itself is a kind of open standard already. If SCID can export all games into a PGN, all could be considered as done.Fulvio wrote: ↑Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:55 pm ...
I have to ask: why someone would exchange databases using OCGDB instead of PGN? PGN offers incredible stability (there are no problems in opening PGNs created 20 years ago) and portability (it is supported by every chess software and it is even possible to open it with just a text editor).
It can only be beaten in compressed file size. Thats why there are sites where you can find other format like Chessbase's cbv ( https://theweekinchess.com/twic ) or SCID ( http://caissabase.co.uk/ ).
However, PGN has many drawbacks to chess databases. Let me quote myself:
- It doesn’t have structures at all, there is no relationship between games, players, events. They are independent of each other. In other words, they are just collections of games, but not databases
- The data may be heavily redundant and inconsistent: names of events, players may be repeated multi times. Same events, players may be different in some games
- Processing speed is so low (compared with binary databases), especially when the number of games is large. Even for some simple queries such as count numbers of games, players,… it may take very long and unacceptable periods in modern computers
- Text size is typically large
IMO, for the sharing databases between programs, using PGN has some main drawbacks:
- missing data. For example, I have known SCID could keep much extra information for players such as birthdays, photos... Those data can't hold via PGN but relation/SQL databases. Direct converting can help to keep that information
- waste time: both SCID and OCGDB are "jets" when working with databases. But PGN and its processing speed are just a steam train. Even we could complete trips with a steam train but it is much more convenient and save time (for users) to go with jets
