Author: José Carlos
Date: 10:08:10 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... Amen. José C.
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.