Author: pavel
Date: 22:50:41 01/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2002 at 13:54:26, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On January 21, 2002 at 13:36:36, Steve Maughan wrote: > >>Frank, >> >>>It is possible to give for Chess-Base GUIs the order: >>>Stop UCI if the engine see that he is working under Chess-Base GUIs. >>> >>>A logical reaction in my opinion. >>>No WB support, no UCI support ... it's easy ! >> >> >>You could argue that CB doesn't have WB support now - so propper UCI support is >>better than what we have at the moment! I definitely want UCI support. There >>has certainly been a buzz about UCI since it was runoured that CB would support >>UCI. I can see that with the new freeware GUI and CB support UCI will become >>*extremely* popular. From a programming point I have implemented winboard >>support in my engine but looking at the UCI protocol it seems much tighter and >>almost as easy to implement. I'm looking forward to making it UCI compatible. >>It'll be great when we have a healthy UCI community that can compete on equal >>terms with Fritz et al. >> >>Regards, >> >>Steve >> >>PS I think CB should also come up with a decent Auto232 alternative that's a bit >>more stable > >Hi, > >no WB support no UCI support. > >CBase will not have the work from amateur programmers, please! >WB and UCI is OK for me, if WB 1:1 native and user must no use this >bad adapter and new configuration files (*.init files). > >CBase will have UCI (if WB works fine under CBase we need not UCI or other >concepts) and now the amateur programmers must give for free this support? > >My opinion: >1:1 Tim Mann in CBase GUIs and we need not other protocols. > >OK, UCI is a good idea but if CBase delete WB support I think the best answere >for UCI engine programmers is a "Stop UCI" order if an UCI amateur engine will >started under CBase GUIs. > >But the programmer must know what is to do (it's only my opinion). > >Best >Frank I think CB can do whatever they want, with all due respect to everyone else. If they want, winboard protocol, they can do it, if they want UCI protocol they can do it. It's just a protocol, who cares which one is implemented. As long as it has general interest from other programmers, i don't see any problem. I don't see any "CHess" programmer actually complaining about this. Even if they do, what good is it? I believe that most programs in the future will have both protocols implemented. Which is even better. Don't you think this time you are taking it a little bit out of proportion? pavs
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.