Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:22:48 08/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2002 at 14:14:30, José Carlos wrote: >On August 16, 2002 at 13:41:48, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>>Amen. >>>José C. >> >>What for a long comment to an important question :-) >>More interesting are your opinion to engine protocols José. >> >>Best >>Frank > > Thanks for your interest in my opinion, Frank. But there's no point in >copy-paste what Bob said, and since I completely agree with him, my "Amen" is >more than enough. > You know I've expressed my opinions many times... I never hide. It's just that >I agree word by word. I stick to winboard way. > > José C. Would be nice with a version III of the protocol though. The GUI should send a few more commands to the engine, like the path to the endgame tables, the amount of hash the program may use, and whether it should print the PV wrt to white or the engine. I also wouldn't mind commands to turn book, resign and offer draw on and off (just like ponder is done now). There is no need for the user to configure all the engines manually in their ini-files, chances are he wants identical setup. One thing I really don't like about WB is that the engines run at 'normal' priority. In win2k this hogs all the CPU power from other applications (they all run default at 'normal'), time and time again I manually have to lower the priority. In Arena they run at 'belownormal', this is much better. I don't know much of the UCI, but I certainly wouldn't want the GUI to play neither the opening nor the endgame for the engines, the very idea is insane IMO. -S.
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.