Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 16:57:50 02/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2002 at 14:09:12, Steve Maughan wrote: >Miguel, > >>I still do not like it (from the programmer's point of view). > >As a relative newcommer to interfacing with GUIs I really like the UCI protocol >(from a programmers point of view). Some of the advantages I like are: > >1. Well documented (as you stated) >2. Easy to implement - I'd even say it's easier to implement than Winboard - >although this may be heresty to some. Easy is a very relative term in this case. I do not think that there is one protocol that is objectively easier than the other. UCI might be easy regarding some points because is more restrictive. >3. Easy to do pondering i.e. no take back of moves Much more difficult to be creative regarding pondering too. >4. Easy to set user option from within the GUI Yes. >5. Can implement your own opening book but don't need to - so once you have your >engine working with the protocol you can play against other engines using a GUI >specific opening book. But you have no control over that. >The only disadvantages I can see is that it's difficult to detect the end of a >game (could be fixed quite easily if there is UCI2) and you can't really do >'fancy' pondering e.g. consider multiple moves of the opponent. They are big disadvantages. For instance, I cannot do the learning I do in my program Gaviota. >I'd be interested in why people seem to think it's worse than Winboard - or is >it that they are just more familiar with Winboard. I believe that UCI is good for an engine used as an analyst partner. Winboard is better for engine engine matches because it gives all the flexibility needed to the programmer. Regards, Miguel >Regards, > >Steve
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.