Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:06:25 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 15:04:26, Dann Corbit wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 10:28:21, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>On August 21, 2002 at 09:35:54, José Carlos wrote: >[snip] >>> 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... > >It might be nice if someone would write a formal BNF grammar for a chess >protocol that incorporates: >1. All the best features of Winboard >2. All the best features of UCI >3. Any missing features (perhaps that appear to be found in professional >programs) >4. Standardized access to opening books >5. Standardized allocation of cache buffers >6. Standardized analysis of EPD/FEN positions >7. An "auto" feature where the engine plays against itself (my pet request). >8. Other stuff that ought to be included (you fill in the blank) > >Having a formal grammar, it becomes trivial to write interfaces. Just toss it >to LEX/YACC or FLEX/BISON or PCCTS or Lemon and -- voilla -- you have an >interface command parser. Several different versions might become available as >standard, easy to bolt on, tool sets. Dann, it sounds like you just volunteered! The computer chess world will be in your debt for decades...
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.