Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:25:10 01/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2002 at 18:17:40, Walter Eigenmann wrote: >>>From all that I've read about UCI, it seems to have several technical advantages >>>over Winboard. >> >>Name one. > >Look at this: > >" What are the advantages of UCI compared to Winboard? > >1. All engine options can be modified within the graphical user interface >so there is no need to deal with ini files. Two minutes to knock off a front end in VB. >2. Much better capabilities to display search information of the engine Not really. >3. Definition of a principal variation is included, Old hat. The current Winboard does this. >4. It's more robust, the GUI always knows exactly what the engine is doing. How does that make it robust? If anything, it detracts from the performance of the engine. >5. It supporting multi variation mode This is one good idea that should be added to Winboard. >6. Support for endgame tablebases Actually, this is a good idea too. But I get shot down every time I mention it to the Winboard programming group. >7. Flexible time controls What time controls can it manage that Winboard cannot? >8. The engine can identify itself Same with Winboard. >9. UCI is supporting a copy protection mechanism (for the professionals)" Great. One more CD that must be loaded at all times. >(in: Aaron Tay, http://www.chesskit.com/aarontay/Winboard/Winboard5.html#[E.10] Endgame tablebase files and multi-variation mode should be added to Winboard. But UCI is not the answer.
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.