Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 01:53:57 01/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2002 at 01:50:41, pavel wrote: >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 Hi, I think on x hours time which programmers spend for Chess-Base WB adapter in the last 2-3 years. A good example is Steen Suurballe with extra code for his parameter if Gandalf play under Chess-Base GUIs. Or x other programmers which give hours of time for this bad adapter. You have right if you say "They can do it". This is not my problem. I will say: If CBase GUIs will not see the work from 123 WB programmers, please Chess-Base must not see the work from amateur UCI programmers. A question for you: Do you think if we have a perfect 1:1 native WB protocol in Chess-Base GUIs that UCI or CBase native protocol is important for user ? The following reason: WB Gromit 3.8.2 is available. The users now ... please please a CBase engine also, or please please a UCI engine. Do you think 3 different engine protocols are the best way for computer chess? This is only a marketing storry if CBase have in the future no interest to make his GUIs compatible to Winboard. This are my opinions to this theme. Best Frank
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.