Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: I understand it now. Thanks, Dr. Hyatt and Frank. (NT)

Author: Alessandro Damiani

Date: 08:26:47 08/16/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 16, 2002 at 10:53:35, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On August 16, 2002 at 08:45:42, Bas Hamstra wrote:
>
>>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)
>
>I completely disagree.  Just because they "looked at winboard" doesn't mean
>they "learned 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.
>
>
>And you think the UCI version is _better_???  The GUI tells the engine what
>it can do, and when it can do it?  The engine can't decide how / when to ponder?
>What to ponder?  If it should ponder at all?
>
>The GUI is _supposed_ to be the interface between the human and the chess
>engine.  It is not supposed to get in the way of either.  UCI does get in the
>way, and it requires a re-design of how the basic engine operates.
>
>Why would I want to do that when the shredder GUI is _not_ free?  When the
>Shredder GUI does _not_ support unix?  When winboard does everything that UCI
>does (and then some in protocol version 2 and more in version 3 when it is
>finalized).
>
>We don't need _another_ protocol.  Particularly one developed by a commercial
>entity.  We _already_ had the chessbase protocol.  We need _fewer_ not _more_
>to make it easier to standardize everyone and eventually hold tournaments where
>humans are not allowed to intervene whatsoever.  This is coming at ICCA events
>before long.
>
>
>
>>- UCI offers more information about the search
>
>
>How?  The engine can tell the operator _anything_ it wants.  You can't provide
>more information than that..
>
>
>
>>
>>I would not be surprised if > 95% of the programmers who actually implemented
>>both WB and UCI, preferred the UCI protocol.
>>
>
>
>
>
>I would...
>
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>
>Don't hold your breath.  The "concepts" used in winboard have been around
>for 30 years.  They _work_.  Giving the GUI total control over the engine is
>_not_ the way I want to see my engine work.  I don't want another person's GUI
>to have control over _my_ engine.  For obvious reasons.  We've already seen
>this once with the broken winboard adapter Chessbase first released...
>

Exactly! I completely agree with Bob.

Alessandro



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.