Author: Jon Dart
Date: 07:35:39 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
I do think Winboard is complex - if TSCP has implemented it in < 200 lines, then it's got a very minimial implementation. I am still finding bugs in my implementation after several years of use and testing, and there are many other engines that have bugs in the protocol somewhere (However, Crafty's implementation is very solid). On the other hand, I don't really have much interest in UCI if the only use of it is to interface to Shredder and other commercial engine GUIs. If someone's bought one of these, the odds they want to bolt my freeware engine onto it are not very high, IMO. In fact, I've had no requests for this feature, so far. Btw. Arena supports both Winboard and UCI protocols. I have tested Arasan in Arena and it works fine in Winboard mode. However, I can't say I like Arena as a GUI. It's crowded with options and it seems you can do most anything with it, but the overall effect is that it's too crowded with gizmos. For example, why can't the engine management just have add an engine, remove an engine, select an engine, instead of the fancy dialog it uses? Just MHO. --Jon
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.