Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:22:25 03/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 19, 1998 at 15:51:28, Ed Schröder wrote: >>Posted by Amir Ban on March 19, 1998 at 08:16:49: > >>>Adding the AUTO232 code is a one day job. You only have to sent the >>>moves played by Ferret to the printer. The supplied NONAME driver >>>does the rest. > > >>Ed is talking about the DOS autoplayer. Won't work for you. For your >>Win32 program, you need the Windows autoplayer. Ask Chrilly Donninger >>for the code. Should be about a week's work of integrating and testing. >>I've found one problem that I posted here recently. Otherwise it works >>ok. You also need the special cable. > >>What Ed says is not true even for the DOS autoplayer. What's involved is >>not only printing the moves (in some obscure format, including move >>numbers and tabs that I never really managed to figure out). You also >>need to have the ability for text mode, and then you have to support a >>bunch of text-mode commands. All this is documented mostly in German. >>Integrating the Windows autoplayer is easier because it just puts out >>messages that you can service as you like. Besides it's source code and >>part of your program, so you can modify it any way that suits you. > >>I think Ed doesn't know this because he never had to do this. The >>"standard" DOS autoplayer is really a TSR that steals some interrupts, >>and it knows about the common commercial programs (Rebel, Genius, Hiarcs >>etc.) knows how their UI works, so it maniplates it programmatically. >>For other programs there's the hook of the NONAME protocol, which each >>must implement on its own. In fact every NONAME interface is a >>proprietary non-standard autoplayer (not that there is anything >>standard about an autoplayer that knows exactly how the Rebel menus >>work). > >You are right, I forgot about that. My job was easy, just sent the >moves to the printer. The rest is done by the driver. > > >>>From my perspective there is no such thing as a standard autoplayer. >>There isn't one now, there can't possibly be one, and really there's no >>need for one. Obviously Ossie Weiner doesn't really understand what he >>is asking for in technical terms. > >>While there's no standard autoplayer, and this thing is a red herring, >>there is a standard autoplayer PROTOCOL, which is something completely >>different. Everyone can implement the protocol and then be able to play >>with another one using the protocol. This protocol is not very well >>documented, but that's a different issue. The implementation of the >>protocol is always proprietary and specific to one program. This is >>inevitable and not at all suspicious. The proof that someone >>implementated the standard correctly is that the protocol works, and >>that's all that matters. > >Where is the information about the protocol? >How much (estimated) time to implement? > > >>In regard to Fritz, I have no idea what their autoplayer does, but the >>fact that it cooperates successfully with other autoplayers is proof >>enough that it is standard AUTO232. If someone feels that things like >>sticking to the same color, or saving games is a mandatory part of the >>standard, they can easily enforce it on their side of the protocol. > >I disagree. > >It should be not allowed that the Fritz autoplayer can rule over >other programs. There are at least 2 strong indicators that this >happens. > >I can't accept that. > >- Ed - > > this cuts two ways. IE I have gotten some games played via the autoplayer with rebel vs crafty, with the rebel "anti-doubles" option enabled, and Rebel is quite capable of aborting a game (somehow) without Crafty having any say-so in it at all. So this has been there from day one I suppose?? >>Standards usually evolve out of consensus or by committee, and are a >>good thing since they enable independent parties to cooperate. I think >>this is a good opportunity to define by committee what the AUTO232 >>protocol is, and then no one is obliged to support anything outside what >>is defined, and everyone should implement what is defined, or else risk >>not being supported. I propose that Chrilly Donninger, who wrote the DOS >>autoplayer, will publish his proposal for the standard protocol, >>including any extensions he feels are necessary now, and put it up for >>debate here. I hope when doing that he will also be speaking for Ossie >>Weiner, and that will solve that problem too. > >>Amir
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.