Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: UCI versus Winboard

Author: José Carlos

Date: 03:03:42 08/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 21, 2002 at 05:51:25, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote:

>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.

  Good point. UCI is good for analysis, probably much better than wb, but not
for matches.

  José C.


>Regards,
>Miguel
>
>>
>>By the way, TSCP's Winboard code is 157 lines, clean, and rock-solid. So much
>>for "impossible".
>>
>>Russell



This page took 0.01 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.