Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 14:11:48 03/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2001 at 16:21:09, James T. Walker wrote: >On March 27, 2001 at 12:11:02, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On March 27, 2001 at 11:12:13, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On March 27, 2001 at 10:52:43, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On March 27, 2001 at 10:34:29, James T. Walker wrote: >>>> >>>>>As a non-programmer I have to say this is one of the silliest threads I have >>>>>ever read. It brings up a few questions to programmers. >>>>> >>>>>1. Why would you let another program decide for you when/how to save a game or >>>>>any other info you think is important?? >>>>>2. Does being desiginated as "Slave" prohibit you from saving information when >>>>>terminating/starting a game?? >>>>> >>>>>I notice when playing two chessbase programs vs each other in auto232 mode they >>>>>both save the game WITHOUT the box being checked. This seems reasonable to me. >>>>>Where's the beef? >>>>>Jim >>>> >>>>Being the "slave" you are dependant from the commands send by the "master". >>>> >>>>This includes the "save game", "new game" and "force move" commands. >>>> >>>>The option "save opponent game" is there because the "save game" may cause >>>>troubles on the remote program. If it does you turn it off. >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>>Hello Ed, >>>As you know I'm not a programmer and know nothing about it but what do you mean >>>by "dependant"?? Sure you need to be told "lets start a new game/It's your >>>move" but seems to me letting your opponent control if you save info or not is >>>crazy. How can the "master" stop you from saving info before starting a new >>>game? >>>Jim >> >>"Dependant" is the key-word of the auto232 protocol. The slave in principle >>has nothing to do and the master is in full control sending commands (mainly >>moves) to the slave. That's why the expression master-slave is a good chosen >>one. >> >>Of course you can add your own stuff such as controlling "save game" yourself >>for instance when the slave retrieves the "new game" command from the master >>you could decide to do a "save game" being the slave. However if the "save >>opponent game" box is checked on the remote PC the game is saved twice which >>isn't desirable also. >> >>Ed > >Hello Ed, >Well naturally that's what I was thinking. Also if you decide to save the info >at the "new game" command you could also decide to ignore any "save game" >commands from the master. I just don't see any sense in putting any more >control of your program than necessarey into the hands of the opponent. You >should be able to make your program do anything you want. And I see no reason >to complain about someone else's program sending or not sending "save game" >commands. >Jim When was I complaining? I was only explaining. Ed
This page took 0.01 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.