Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 16:44:15 01/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
I'd just like to point out that UCI isn't clearly better than the winboard protocol. Tim Mann has been doing a great job with the winboard protocol lately, and many probably prefer it to UCI. I applaud SMK's efforts with UCI, it does have some nice features for sure, but its not all one way traffic~ Off the top of my head, some advantages of winboard protocol: a) Hard for the engine to do learning in UCI because you don't know when one game ends and the next one starts. Note that the Shredder GUI does its own learning, the Shredder engine does not. But it gets difficult if you want your engine to do its own learning under Shredder. b) UCI sends the entire move list before each move in the game. The engine must play through this list to get to the current position. This is a bit ugly in my opinion, and also slightly inefficient. If you are just starting programming an engine, its probably a hassle too. c) Winboard commands can, at a pinch, be typed in manually from a text console. You can easily play a game like this. Because of (b) above, this is not practical in UCI. Makes manual testing a drag. d) Winboard has a nice protocol version system, so you don't have to support everything in the protocol to get up and running. Can't remember if UCI has this, don't think so. e) From memory, pondering in UCI is controlled by the GUI. The engine can't switch to pondering another move if it thinks that would be a good idea. cheers, Peter
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.