Author: James T. Walker
Date: 21:56:14 03/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 2001 at 17:11:48, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 Hello Ed, No, Not YOu. I was just responding to the thread at the end. You just happened to be the last poster. Vincent was the one starting this thread and he's such a great programmer I can't understand why he would have a problem with auto232 causing his program problems. Best Regards, Jim
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.