Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is a third native concept important, questions for a new poll ?

Author: Tim Mann

Date: 20:37:07 05/20/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 16, 2001 at 14:15:26, Mogens Larsen wrote:

>The second WinBoard protocol was released soon after the UCI protocol. Was that
>a mere coincidence or did it work as a catalyst for an otherwise
>postponed/delayed revision of the WinBoard protocol?

A little of both.  I had worked on protocol version 2 for quite some time before
posting it for comments, of course; that should be obvious from the number of
changes from version 1 and the fact that I had the changes implemented in
WinBoard at the time I posted the document.  At the moment UCI was released,
WinBoard protocol version 2 had been 99% ready to post for comments for a few
weeks, but I hadn't quite gotten around to pushing it out the door yet.  Seeing
UCI posted did give me a small additional push to finish the last 1% of getting
the document polished and posting it.  UCI didn't influence any of the WinBoard
protocol's features; they were already set at the time I first saw UCI.  If UCI
had never been released at all, my protocol revision would have gone out at
roughly the same time it did in reality, with exactly the same features.

	--Tim




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.