Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 13:34:14 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 15:52:25, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 15:04:26, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. > >I fear, lex/yacc are not suitable for this task. Without thinking about it too >deep, it seems one would need to design the engine around the protocol. In a >typical engine, there are some places, where the engine has to interface with >some GUI. For example, deep inside the search. > >Anyway, some randomn thoughts about a protocol, that should be easy to >implement, and that allow the engine programmer all creativity. Perhaps WB does >this already - but I think, it is prone to errors, because it is not strictly >defined enough. Actually, it is rather easy for an operator in console mode to >use. But one should get rid of this for an engine-GUI protocol. Engine authors, >that like the console mode, can implement something anyway. Look for example at >Analyze mode in WB. Everything, that can be done now, could be done with much >less demands to the engine. Only allowed commands would be exit and ".". A >setboard during analyze could be done by "exit\nsetboard\n\analyze\n". Moves >similarily. For me, allowing moves in analyze mode (and setboard) was the only >problem to implement this mode - otherwise it would be trivial. >I think for an engine-GUI protocol, one idea of UCI is much better: Minimize the >commands allowed during search. Under UCI, I believe only stop and ponderhit is >possible. Under WB many things are possible. Why moves on analyze mode or many possible commands in WB is a problem? Regards, Miguel
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.