Author: Georg v. Zimmermann
Date: 03:18:33 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
>>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. > I agree that UCI might be ok for analysis. But as you said, not for games. In UCI you dont even know when a game ended, you have to extract that information from the last few moves. Also in long games the ammount of redundant data exchanged between the engine and uci-interfaces gets unbearable for a purist. And how pondering is handled - well - "creativity about different pondering methods is almost impossible" just about says it all. Winboard has the big advantage that you can implement part of the protocol, and the engine already works fine. Winboard was here first. Winboard Protover 2 works great. Now we only need to copy some of the nice ideas from UCI to winboard protover 3, like engine-setting dialog (I already posted a detailed proposel a while ago) or hash fill status. Regards, Georg
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.