Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 02:51:25 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 05:25:47, Russell Reagan wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 05:03:29, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>>You say so now. But my UCI code is 400 lines, clean, and rock-solid. That is >>simply impossible with Winboard. That says something about the protocols. >I think you're talking to the wrong person if you're trying to convince Bob that >UCI is superior. He has already made his dislike of it well known, and since it >is 100% a matter of opinion (IE you can't *prove* UCI is better), I think you're >fighting a losing battle. There are things that are not a matter of opinion, In my opinion :-). For instance, In UCI, it is not straightforward to do some techniques for learning. Alos, creativity about different pondering methods is almost impossible. IMHO, UCI is a good protocol for anaylis, but for engine-engine matches it has a design that limits the engine. Regards, Miguel > >By the way, TSCP's Winboard code is 157 lines, clean, and rock-solid. So much >for "impossible". > >Russell
This page took 0.02 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.