Author: Daniel Mehrmannn
Date: 15:10:05 05/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 25, 2005 at 16:15:28, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On May 25, 2005 at 08:11:05, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>Hi Dieter, >> >>>> By the way: The reason why I send an "ucinewgame" before every position is >>>> simple: just to keep sure that the hash is cleared. Else solutions are not >>>> reproduceable at all. >> >>> It is of course no guarantee, that the engine will clear the hash tables. >> >>Well, I know that, but what else should I do ? > >I think, you cannot do much better. > >>I think in many engines this will >>clear the hash. By the way: When I want to use the clear hash function ? How is >>it done ? setoption Clear Hash value true or what ? I did not find anything >>about that in the specs... > >There isn't anything defined. Many engines will send > >option name Clear Hash type button > >at startup (because this is given as an example in the UCI text). When they send >this, you can be pretty sure, that the engine will support hash clearing with >exactly this option. > >eb2wb would send > >setoption name Clear Hash > >(note the "name" and the missing "value true" compared to your example). CB is >doing exactly this, IIRC. It does not check, that the engine sent option Clear >Hash ... > >Cheers, >Dieter Yes, it looks like that CB use, at some points, a own UCI variant. Maybe UCI doesn't fit into her backend construction, at least for her own protocol, and they don't wanna changing these backend parts or GUI stuff. I hope Fritz9 shows us a better way. The current state looks for me very dirty. daniel
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.