Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:01:30 11/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2004 at 09:55:57, milix wrote: >On November 07, 2004 at 03:14:29, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On November 06, 2004 at 18:58:04, Pallav Nawani wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Personally, I don't want to support any 'special features' in GUIs. This will >>>lead to WB protocol becoming confusing, as now every GUI has its own features >>>not available in the other. ChessBase8 may have a feature, chessbase9 may have >>>another, new, feature. So now the GUi string >>>gui chessbase >>>Dosen't cut it anymore. YOu need >>>gui chessbase8 >>>gui chessbase9 >>>etc. >>> >>>In other words, authors whose programs use WB2 protocol will have the task of >>>maintaining a small DB of GUI's within their programs. Even worse, different >>>GUIs will decide to use different names/strings for a same feature. This will >>>become messy. If some GUI has a useful new feature, it is probably better to add >>>it to the Winboard protocol proper, rather than leave it at the mercy of GUIs. >>> >>>Note that I don't have any objection to the gui command, I just feel that using >>>it as a basis to have special code for separate GUIs is not something I want to >>>do. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Pallav >> >>I want to see some improvements to the Winboard protocol, but I have to agree >>with you and I don't think this proposed change will result in an improvement of >>the situation. The only significant measuring stick for the Winboard protocol is >>the UCI protocol, which is more attractive IMO (as an engine programmer and >>especially as an engine user). Compared to UCI, Winboard is already a bit >>clunky. I think the existence of the 'feature' command is enough. >> >>Unless there are improvements to the Winboard-2 protocol, I think the Winboard >>protocol is on the way out and UCI will continue to grow in popularity. I fear >>that adding more complexity to support every GUI extension under the sun would >>only accelerate Winboard's departure. Anyone writing a new engine will look at >>the two protocols and see a nice, simple, user friendly protocol in UCI with a >>relatively small downside, and something complicated in Winboard (relative to >>UCI). A new computer chess programmer won't care too much about the common >>drawbacks of UCI. >> >>I don't like that my engine can't resign, accept draws, offer draws, >>kibitz/whisper to an ICS, and that I have to "trick" the protocol to ponder the >>way I want to using UCI, but the pros outweigh the cons IMO, and there are >>tolerable workarounds. >> >>I'd like something in the middle, ideally. The Winboard protocol has contributed >>very significantly to the popularity of computer chess. UCI improved upon the >>Winboard protocol in some areas. I'm waiting for something that improves on them >>both. Creating my own protocol and GUI is something I've been working on for a >>long time (on paper), but it is definitely a non-trivial task. I've also >>considered the idea of writing an adapter that understands both protocols >>simultaneously, or maybe a UCI-to-WB adapter that allows some Winboard commands >>(ex. for kibitzing analysis in a CCT event, etc.). > >Hi Russel >Personaly, I believe the above was true for WB 1 but it is not for WB 2. The >feature command, the setboard command and others added the needed flexibility to >the x-board protocol. Besides the protocol it is not that complex. On the other >hand, the UCI 1 protocol has the serious drawback of not knowing when a new game >is started. It is clear to me that WB suits nice for engines that play chess >games and UCI is for engines that are used for analyzing positions. When >analyzing you not need to know if this position is a new game or not. it dosn't >matter. You also need to see many alternative lines, thus and the multivariation >support in UCI 2. > >My bests, >Anastasios Milikas The nice thing about UCI is that the engine doesn't have to keep track of whether it is pondering, searching, etc. It also has (IMO) a simpler syntax. The problem with UCI is that the engine therefore can't do anything special, like ponder on more than one move. anthony
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.