Author: Lance Perkins
Date: 01:33:59 03/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
Can you name an engine that does not keep track of the move list, and that it
needs to be told what the move list is for every move? The engine know a lot
more - like, how to score book moves (and the scoring varies between engines)
and learn from it.
This UCI issue is simple - its a bad design.
In contemporary software design, we think of 'personas' and 'scenarios'. In this
regard, UCI has missed the persona of the engine, and missed the scenario of
exchanging moves - the most common scenario ('core' scenario).
So how does xboard address the other scenario where one must really set the
board state to some position? You just send a 'setboard' command.
Sure it is cheap to write code to work around it, but its still a bad protocol
design.
---
On March 10, 2005 at 03:22:34, Tord Romstad wrote:
>On March 09, 2005 at 22:27:44, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>If I told you the story "War and Peace" and after each and every word, I told
>>you again all the words that I said before, I think you would be annoyed.
>
>Sure, but computer programs do not easily get annoyed.
>
>>Pass a bloody FEN, for crying out loud.
>
>How would you detect threefold repetitions, then?
>
>I agree with Anthony here. I don't understand what the problem with
>passing the move list is.
>
>Tord
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.