Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:10:08 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 15:06:25, Roy Eassa wrote: >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... In the words of 'The Man in Black' -- "You guessed wrong."
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.