Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:12:49 03/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 28, 2001 at 00:56:14, James T. Walker wrote: >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 I have said this before, but I have not said it recently, so here goes: "auto232 is a piece of trash". Nothing else to be said. When a protocol has built-in timing dependencies that get fried when they are not met, such a protocol is trash. At one point Crafty worked perfectly. Then someone got a faster CPU. I had to add a delay to not move _too_ quickly else auto232 would miss the move and the game would hang. If I probe endgame databases too hard, the interrupts somehow cause auto232 to hang. To have to have a function "Delay()" in your code, and to have to have a command "delay N" where N is in milliseconds, is terrible. But when you then have to tell users "you have to find N for yourself. Try the default and if it hangs, try other values until it doesn't" makes my software engineering skin crawl. Think about how many different values there are for up to a one second delay. :( And a user has to experiment to find the right one? And then he upgrades something (faster processor, faster disks, more memory, new operating system, faster/slower version of the chess engine) and then he has to go Easter-egg hunting again trying to find the right delay value? trash, trash, trash. Can't say it enough. :)
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.