Author: Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
Date: 01:55:12 11/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 29, 2000 at 04:05:43, Vladimir Sokolov wrote: >On November 29, 2000 at 02:45:34, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: > >>On November 28, 2000 at 15:34:51, Edward Screven wrote: >> >>>i think your protocol has a lot to recommend it. in particular i >>>like having search separated from play, having clock information >>>made available as part of the "go" command, and having engine >>>specific options exposed through the GUI. but i have one question >>>and one objection. >>> >>>question: why is "position" a separate command, and not an argument >>>to "go". as far as i can tell, there's nothing an engine is >>>supposed to do with a position other than search it, and the >>>engine isn't supposed to search until it receives a "go". so >>>why not take the stateless nature of the protocol further and >>>make the position information part of "go"? >> >>Yes, this was one point we also thought about as there will always be a >>"position" command before a "go" command. We decided to keep it seperated as >>both commands can be quite long. >> >>>objection: i strongly dislike the way pondering is supposed to work. >>>i don't mind having a command that says "start pondering now", but >>>the assumptions built into the protocol - that it is always a search >>>based on an opponent move guess computed as a side affect of a >>>previous search - are too limiting. what about the first move out >>>of book? what if no guess move is immediately available because >>>the previous search ended in a fail-high? in these cases my engine >>>does a short search to guess at the opponent move, but it doesn't do >>>that until it is time to start pondering. i don't see how to >>>fit this into the uci protocol. >> >>You are right, but the engine can take the last move sent in a "go ponder" >>command as a suggestion on what to do. It can ponder or do anything it likes, it >>only has to execute that particular move after the "ponderhit" command. >> >>This is eqivalent to what we are doing if you take the move as a suggestion. see >>above. >> >>Thanks for your comments. >> >> Stefan > > > >If UCI is really an equivalent to Winboard it is freely downloadable, >or is it more exactly a protocol that functions like an adapter between engine >and GUI ? It's a protocol. > Different Gui's, that can be modified by the user, can be built to >function with the protocol, but the Gui of Shredder 5 is not downloadable, >consequently the graphical user interface of Shredder 5 is not freely available. right. 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.