Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is it time for the Winboard Protocol to go the way of the Dodo?

Author: Lance Perkins

Date: 11:29:21 03/10/05

Go up one level in this thread


On the contraty, this is not about bandwidth. Think 'protocol' design.

API's is another form of protocol. When you write your Search function requring
the alpha and beta values, do you pass these 'integers' as 'strings' and then
convert them to integers inside the function? The values are naturally integer.
Why represent them as strings. Engines are naturally stateful. Why invent a
protocol that treats them differently.

Since you insist to make this a bandwidth issue, what makes you think that a
chess engine protocol will not be used over the network? The ThinkerBoard
package comes with a utility called RemoteThinker/RelayThinker that allows a GUI
to run from one machine and the engine to run from another machine. Your GUI
will have no clue that engine is actually remote.

In protocol design, when you invoke a service, you should be transport-safe. The
service can be on the same machine or it can be on another machine.

These are very basic computer science concepts.

---

On March 10, 2005 at 13:23:41, Anthony Cozzie wrote:

>Once again you miss the point.  UCI is not a network protocol. HTTP is.
>Bandwidth is important over the internet; a few extra bytes over a pipe is not.
>The point is that the xboard code in Zappa requires 3x the number of lines as
>the UCI code.
>
>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.