Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is UCI a politically viable alternative to Winboard?

Author: Peter Berger

Date: 15:39:02 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.
>2. Much better capabilities to display search information of the engine
>3. Definition of a principal variation is included,
>4. It's more robust, the GUI always knows exactly what the engine is doing.
>5. It supporting multi variation mode
>6. Support for endgame tablebases
>7. Flexible time controls
>8. The engine can identify itself
>9. UCI is supporting a copy protection mechanism (for the professionals)"
>
>(in: Aaron Tay, http://www.chesskit.com/aarontay/Winboard/Winboard5.html#[E.10]
>
>Walter

Oops - you definitely did quote correctly. Maybe you should also have mentioned
Aaron's next line: [Taken from UCI technical Specification in Richtext format ]

Let's get the sources right ( no accuses , Aaron's page is misleading here I
think):

http://www.it.ro/ccc_search/ccc.php?art_id=141612

So these are the advantages of the UCI protocol over WB
(/protocolVersion=1)according to one of the UCI authors.

Regards,
pete



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.