Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 05:16:54 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 06:18:33, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: > >>>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. Ok, to some extent I agree, especially about the game-result. >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. IF this happened (and the engine settings dialog IS great of course): - It still would be less "robust" than UCI - In UCI I can let the engine display "free format" search info on the fly, I get detailed
This page took 0 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.