Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:30:50 04/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2004 at 14:05:28, Peter Schäfer wrote: >On April 16, 2004 at 12:26:11, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: > > >>>- let the engine decide about resignation and draw. >>> This is even more interesting if the engine can take the opponent's ELO >>> into account (e.g. don't offer draws to weak opponents). >> >>We have discussed this in Paderborn and we sort of agreed that this would wreck >>the stateless design of the protocol. > >I don't think that it must break the design. >One could interpret draw offers (or resignations) as mere hints to the GUI. There shouldn't be much of a problem with the resigning issue, this can be done by the GUI (adjurdication) when the score reaches a certain level. Offering a draw however requires the detection of a drawn position. I don't quite see this as a natural job for a GUI to do, unless of course we are in a TB position. >After the engine has indicated that it would like to resign/accept/offer draw, >it still must keep on responding (just as if nothing had happened). >The GUI can stay in complete control and decide when the game is actually >finished. The problem is, as I see it, that the GUI must be part engine to handle the game-state information for a stateless engine. What I don't quite understand is how the GUI is going to accomplish that task without using, at times, significant CPU resources. -S. >Regards, >Peter
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.