Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 12:37:50 07/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2003 at 15:09:58, Steve Maughan wrote: >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. Well, like I said you can work around it. The GUI doesn't say explicitly when to clear the hash and when not to, what it does do however, is setting up the initial position over and over and over at every move. This is like starting a new game, only in UCI it is not always a new game!? If the idea behind this is not to clear everything and start a of fresh, then I certainly fail to see any point in it. Is the then engine supposed to *guess* when to clear tables? With all due respect, I am quite sure that is not the intention. >As for running in a dumber state - Shredder is top of the SSDF so this doesn't >add up. I never said you couldn't make a strong program in UCI, however I am quite sure that a winboard engine could theoreticly become even stronger, as winboard offers more information to the engine during, and at the start of, the game. >>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 UCI has its advantages, I like the multipv and the way the GUI can send hash information, less hassle with configuration files is nice. IMO it doesn't quite make up for the disadvantages though. -S. >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.