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.