Author: Odd Gunnar Malin
Date: 06:15:03 02/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2002 at 03:13:17, Lex Loep wrote: >On February 01, 2002 at 14:01:24, Odd Gunnar Malin wrote: > >>On February 01, 2002 at 13:06:51, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On February 01, 2002 at 07:54:51, J.Dufek wrote: >>> >>>>On February 01, 2002 at 05:14:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 01, 2002 at 03:37:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On February 01, 2002 at 02:57:21, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 01, 2002 at 02:00:02, Jose Menendez wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.rebel.nl/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000379.html >>>>>> >>>>>>How soon is soon on the Winboard Rebel? >>>>>> >>>>>>As you know, I have been panting for this for ages. >>>>>> >>>>>>Generally speaking -- 1 month? 1 quarter? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Probably in between. >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>> >>> >>>>Hi Rebel's group! :-) >>>>Very good message. >>>>One question for Ed: you wrote about enhanced winboard protocol. But now coming >>>>Arena :-) - will be a possible run Century with all features (CAT, book ...) >>>>under this GUI (or how about implementing UCI ...:-) ) >>>>Thank you very much for your answer >>>>Best regards >>>>J. >>> >>>I heard many good things about Arena in the between time, I haven't had the time >>>to have a look at it. Where can one download it? >>> >>>About Rebel: the interface will support UCI engines and an extended Winboard >>>protocol which allows every WB programmer to add some basic missing WB features >>>such as the display of opening book moves, the current line "Move Nf6 (7/44) >>>depth=14", flexible hash table size etc. >>> >> >>You are talking of the Interface could show this info and not that you have >>extended the protocol to have this info? >>I ask because both bookmove (bk) and current thinking move (stat01) is already >>in the protocol and suported by many engines. >>The output from stat01 line is prety standard but the bk output is of free >>format, have you made an output standard that the interface need. > There was propose by Dieter Bürßner to have a GUI command in the protocol so the GUI could ask the engine if it have implemented some special command for this GUI. I think some GUI programmer should take this up in the right fora. >According to the WBII specs stat01 is only defined for analyse mode and I tested some engines with this command in normal search an most of them would give the stat01 message, a few was ignoring this under search that would maybe be the correct way strictly to the protocol. A small number was actually taking this as a 'move now' (?) command but this engines would also move if they get a draw offer under search so to please them you must have a toggle switch in the engine setupbox that could stop all communication except for 'move now' and maybe 'quit'. We are not talking of the maine use of the program here, playing against an engine, because I don't think many would like to see any search information then. So this let us to a few engin-engine runners. Another main use of a program is analyze but here the stat01 line is allowed. >having a bk command with an undefined output is pretty useless. You could show a box with this information but I agree this isn't much in a commercial GUI. Here you must be allowed to follow the tree by clicking on a move. I'm not sure what you would do with this information, if you should be able to alter any information in the book there must be a book-mode commandset too. Have you added a 'addbookmove <move> <score>' command or something. >Further more there is no defined way to set various engine parameters like >hash size, tablebase path, books, personalyties, styles etc. I agree this make the engine hard to use by 'none computer experts'. The protocol need some changes in this area. >To solve al these I added just two commands: > >setvar - sets a variable >getvar - to retreive a variable. > >The list of variables is currently in a ini file which belongs >to the engine, the GUI uses the list to build a dialog and to >send the proper commands to the engine. I first thought we was back to stage one here with the user fidling with the ini file but you of course talk about a 'one time' ini file that the author or another who knows the engine could make and would follow the engine. It is ok with changes but I would love if this also was discussed in the proper fora first. But I think it isn't so wrong if you don't broke any compatibility with the standard. Odd Gunnar
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.