Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 05:45:42 08/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2002 at 03:12:02, Eran wrote: >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 UCI is superior IMO (Not surprising, since they were able to learn from Winboard) - It's very straightforward and only processes commands in force mode - Easier to implement - It publishes it's own options which are then supported by the gui, this is very very nice - Much easier to install new engines, no dozens of ini files necessary - You can change engine settings while the engine is loaded - The situation with pondering in Winboard is asking for trouble. While pondering (=busy searching) the engine must be able to process commands which is messy. Each engine comes up with it's own messy solution for this. - UCI offers more information about the search I would not be surprised if > 95% of the programmers who actually implemented both WB and UCI, preferred the UCI protocol. Maybe Winboard can support UCI as well? This would give the WB protocol the chance to die slowly (but peaceful) because eventually everyone will chose for UCI. Bas Hamstra.
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.