Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 19:06:57 07/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2001 at 14:57:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >On July 15, 2001 at 13:16:32, Dieter Buerssner wrote: > >>On July 14, 2001 at 21:49:35, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>But Yace 0.99.50 doesn't ponder in the ChessBase GUI. >> >>The latest WB adapter available at the www.chessbase.com was from Nov. 2000 when >>Yace 0.99.50 was made available. Pondering seemed to work as well as possible, >>when I tested this. I rechecked today, and no newer adapter was available. I >>have downloaded the newest version from Frank's site, and indeed pondering is >>not working anymore with this. All the earlier versions of the WB-Adapter sent >>"hard" (=WB-protocol way of saying permanent brain on), before the sent the >>ChessBase extension ponder move (which Yace supports). The newest version of the >>WB adapter sends "easy" (=permanent brain off) instead ... >> >>Sorry, the technical documentation of the CB-specific extensions to the Xboard >>protocol is totally inadequate. From private communication with the Gandalf >>programmer, it seems, that I am not the only one, having problems with this. >>If they had interest, they would fix at least this. >> >>There is no mention of the before mentioned change at all. I have guessed all >>their implementation details from studying log-files. My implementation was >>dependent on the hard be sent first. >> >>There are other problems with their implementation of ponder mode. A chessengine >>cannot really know allways, if it runs with permanent brain on or off, and so >>cannot adjust its time management for this. >> >>I think, customers of CB software, that are interested in well functioning >>WB-engines, should write to them. I did not have much success with my questions >>there ... >> >>For users of Yace, I suggest to use the WB-adapter of Nov. 2000. > >Surely I am just cynical, but perhaps they want it broken because: >1. A completely fair playing field will not give any advantage to commercial >programs >2. If commercial programs are just a little bit better, a contest of (perhaps) >20 games could easily lean in favor of the weaker programs. >3. If amateur programs are actually as strong as the commercial ones (or even >nearly so) it will make the commercial programs look bad. > >Perhaps I am seeing controversy where there is none. >Perhaps I am imagining subversion where nothing of the sort exists. > >But then again, they have been aware of the exact nature of the problem for >many, many years. >A fixed version appears, and right away it is broken again. > >Purely coincidence, I imagine. ... and see CLiebert's answer & lack of answer in this issue... Sometimes silence really can speak...
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.