Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 05:28:49 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
>>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, >>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 - WB is still the same old bald spartanic WB, I get no info about which move it is searching of how many, I can't display free format search info on the fly as easy, etc. - You still would have WB1 engines with ini-files, others would maybe not use them, but the options dialog. Others both :-) In any case, not exactly an ideal situation for the user. Bas.
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.