Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:04:43 01/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2002 at 17:49:11, Dann Corbit wrote: yes winboard is fine to start with. it is however clear there is a winboard++ set needed to improve winboard. also some stupid things like control-c each move, that must be thrown out of the normal winboard too. only gnuchess needs it, but a 1 minute hack of gnuchess fixes that. (the old gnuchess i mean, not the bitboard one). >On January 25, 2002 at 17:37:15, Mike Hood wrote: > >>From all that I've read about UCI, it seems to have several technical advantages >>over Winboard. > >Name one. > >>But, as we all know, the best product doesn't always succeed. >> >>There will only be large support among chess engine programmers if there is a >>high quality free GUI available. (If UCI interpreatation remains proprietary to >>Chessbase it will kill the protocol before it even takes off). Is there a >>comparable freeware equivalent of the Winboard program (WinUCI)? If not, are >>there any plans to create one? > >Why not trash UCI and all the other pretender interfaces, and go with the open, >well adopted, flexible specification: >Winboard.
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.