Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: UCI versus Winboard

Author: Bas Hamstra

Date: 06:29:53 08/21/02

Go up one level in this thread


On August 21, 2002 at 09:04:35, Steffen Jakob wrote:

>On August 21, 2002 at 08:58:44, José Carlos wrote:
>
>>On August 21, 2002 at 08:49:31, Steffen Jakob wrote:
>>
>>>On August 21, 2002 at 08:47:58, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you are going to add more things to WinBoard, it'll just become more
>>>>>horrible. A horrible design doesn't fix itself by adding more cruft to it.
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>GCP
>>>>
>>>>Whats so horrible ? As far as I can see sjeng works perfectly with winboard
>>>>protover 2.
>>>
>>>It's not well documented which commands can be send during search and how the
>>>engine should behave exactly (e.g. "setboard", "force").
>>>
>>>Greetings,
>>>Steffen.
>>
>>  Then why not simply document them correctly?
>
>Dont ask me, ask Tim. :-)
>
>Greetings,
>Steffen.

IMO it would be a substantial improvement if the protocol _only_ allowed
handling of commands in force mode (with a few exceptions like "?" and "force"
to be able to abort a search).

Bas.























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.