Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 04:05:22 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 06:18:52, Steve Maughan wrote: >Miguel, > >>UCI is a good protocol for anaylis, but for engine-engine matches it has a >>design that limits the engine. > >I agree that book learning and some elaborate pondering algorithms are difficult >(impossible? - not sure) to implement. However I think the whole "UCI limits >the engine statement" can be *way* overstated. Remember Shredder has won many >tournaments / World championships using the UCI protocol -so it cannot hinder >you too much!! IMO and from an amatuer's standpoint the limitations imposed by Since they own the interface they can implement whatever idea they have in either the engine or the interface, so they are not limited. >UCI are far outweighed by the advantaged of not having to reinvent the wheel for >pondering and time management etc. I also think that over time the objections >will die as most of the objections come from folks who have long established >engines and who have designed their engines explicitly for Winboard - in the >future the amateurs will start to design their engines with UCI in mind. When you design an engine you should design it with the engine in mind, not with the protocol in mind. Miguel > >Regards, > >Steve
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.