Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Drawbacks of UCI

Author: Steve Maughan

Date: 12:09:58 07/24/03

Go up one level in this thread


Sune,

>I agree whith those saying it is easier to implement, but the reason for that
>is that the engine is running in a dumber state.
>
>As you well know, at each move the position is setup'ed again.
>Normally this will clear hash-, killer- an historytables.

With respect this is nonesense.  There is no reason at all to clear the hash,
killer or historytable just because you're under UCI.  Monarch doesn't and I
doubt Shredder, YACE or Sjeng do either.

As for running in a dumber state - Shredder is top of the SSDF so this doesn't
add up.

>As mentioned learning is made harder and the engine can't resign or offer
>draws.
>
>So in UCI the engine is not a fully legit chessplayer, it is more like an
>analysis tool used by the GUI to play games.

It is correct that the engine has less control on draw offering and resigning.

>I personally see the winboard protocol as being better, although none of them
>are perfect of course.

I disagree and I suspect other such as SMK, GCP and Dieter and Bas Hamstra do
also

Cheers

Steve



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.