Author: Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Date: 01:20:09 04/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2004 at 04:09:33, Peter Schäfer wrote: >On April 17, 2004 at 14:08:06, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: > >>On April 16, 2004 at 15:17:17, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On April 16, 2004 at 12:26:11, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Hello Peter, >>>> >>>> >>>>On April 16, 2004 at 12:14:37, Peter Schäfer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Hello Stefan, >>>>> >>>>>Is there a chance that we will see further improvements to the UCI protocol ? >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, there will be further improvements, but we have just released a new version >>>>so don't expect it to happen next week. >>>> >>>> >>>>>I guess these issues have been discussed before a lot, just to mention a few: >>>>> >>>>>- 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. We integrated AnalysisMode and ucinewgame >>>>but we didn't want to go any further. >>> >>> >>>Why not another info tags: "resign" meaning "I want to resign" and "draw" >>>meaning "I want a draw". Then it's up to the GUI (the user) to handle it as >>>desired. >> >> >>In "pure" UCI the engine doesn't know (and doesn't need to know) that it is >>playing a game. The engine just gets positions to search. Actually the engine >>doesn't know what a game of chess is. Because of this the engine can't resign a >>game or offer draws in a game. >> >>Now we have added the "AnalyseMode" command, so the engine does at least know >>whether the positon to search belongs to a game or is just an analysis. Also >>with "ucinewgame" the engine knows to which "game" (actually it need not be a >>game for the engine, just that after ucinewgame the engine is searching on >>something different) a position belongs. We did this because of public demand >>and not because we really liked it. >> >>Those two changes are a step in the direction to explain the engine what a game >>is. If you want the engine to resign something you have to tell the engine what >>to resign. We didn't want to go that far. It is just a design or philosophical >>decision. >> > >Hello Stafan, > >this seems to be one more point in favor of a "stateful" protocol. >I don't want to start a discussion about it, because such a descision >needs careful consideration (and you certainly have discussed it before). > >I just want to point out that many engines "de facto" already use a kind of >stateful approach, because it is common practice to transfer the complete move >list with every position. >It is not an elegant solution, but it demonstrates that there is a real demand >for a stateful protocol. > >Best Wishes, >Peter Transfering the whole move list for every positiion to search indicates a stateless protocol as the engine need not remember the moves played so far. Stefan
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.