Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 07:28:21 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 09:35:54, José Carlos wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 09:29:53, Bas Hamstra wrote: > >>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. > > Absolutely. And I think it's perfectly doable, if someone is willing to >continue Tim's work. I agree it's doable. I also agree with GCP that IF a new version of a protocol is to be created, I would prefer a fresh UCI-2 over a patched WB protocol, that is basically flawed, because it tried to cope with the peculiarities of too many dinosaur chessprograms in the past. It has become a burden... Best regards, 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.