Author: Eran
Date: 00:12:02 08/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2002 at 20:14:53, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On August 15, 2002 at 19:36:24, Eran wrote: > >>On August 15, 2002 at 15:50:59, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >> >>>Hi there, >>> >>>under the following address can be found interviews with: >>> >>>01. Tim Mann >>>02. Robert Hyatt >>>03. Martin Blume >>> >>>Main theme are engine protocols! >>> >>>The interview with Martin is so far only in German available, the interviews >>>with Robert and Tim also in English. >>> >>>With the permission by ChessBits! >>>(German computer chess magazine, interviews are from issue 18) >>> >>>Have a nice day ... I hope the big group of Winboarders found interesting >>>information. >>> >>>http://www.playwitharena.com/directory/interviews/interviews.htm >>> >>>Best >>>Frank >> >>I am surprised to hear that Dr. Hyatt does not like UCI protocol. I hope he does >>not think that UCI protocol is a piece of trash, does he? >> >>Eran > >Hi, > >not surprised for me ... I know the discuss here about the new UCI protocol for >many months. Normaly I have the same opinion compare to Robert but UCI is free >and have much interesting options. More easy for users of chess software compare >to WinBoard, not for me :-). WinBoard is the standard engine protocol and if I >saw a chance to make a bigger publicity for amateur chess I used it. With UCI >have more users interest to play with amateur chess programs, users from the >group which used in the past only commercial chess programs. Good for amateur >chess and commercial chess. > >On the other hand, you can see that it's possible to make a good WinBoard >Support (Arena's engine configuration for a good example). > >We will look in the future of computer chess engine protocols. A long time an >interesting subject for all users of chess software. > >All 3 opinions in the interviews are very interesting. I like the comments of >Robert, Tim and Martin! > >But clear is ... >We have 160 free programs, enough material for all engine lovers. If we find a >way to used the engine protocols under one GUI ... all is fine and the best of >all is that users of commercial chess programs have more interest on amateur >UCI engines (many commercial GUIs have also a good WinBoard support, this is >clear). > >Chessmaster, ChessPartner, Chess-Assistant, Chess Academy for examples. In my >opinion have all of this GUIs a clearly better support of the WinBoard standard >engines protocol compare to ChessBase GUIs. I like also ChessBase GUIs very much >(please not false understand). > >Clear is also ... >We have enough UCI engines, to many UCI engines for interesting users because >users can not play with all of the available programs. > >But commercial chess is in the next years in my opinion only a little group of >engines. Maybe in 2 years 50x more amateur engines are available and I am sure >in the near future also engines with a playing strength compare to top programs >at this time. > >With other words: >We have now UCI so we can used it, it's free and if persons have fun on UCI is >this also OK for me :-) > >Interesting is the comment by Bob ... >"I simply don't like UCI" > >Give me one reason why a programmer must create an UCI engine if he have a >perfect working WinBoard engines and users of commercial ChessBase software have >a ChessBase native engine. > >Today: >- WinBoard >- UCI >- ChessBase protocol > >Tomorrow: >- Pumuckel >- Hotzenplotz >- the Pumuckel / Hotzenplotz combination > >I hope that not more protocols comes in the near future. UCI is good for >learning from the situation ... we have enough protocols. A perfect running >protocol is better as 3 or 6 or 12 different protocols. > >Best >Frank
This page took 0.01 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.