Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:41:52 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 08:28:49, Bas Hamstra wrote: [snip] >IF this happened (and the engine settings dialog IS great of course): > >- It still would be less "robust" than UCI >- WB is still the same old bald spartanic WB, I get no info about which move it >is searching of how many, I can't display free format search info on the fly as >easy, etc. >- You still would have WB1 engines with ini-files, others would maybe not use >them, but the options dialog. Others both :-) In any case, not exactly an ideal >situation for the user. Maybe a whole new protocol that is not backwards compatible to either. Sounds horrible, but there are some reasons it might be nice. First off, I would like the protocol manager (e.g. Winboard/Arena/Whatever) to be able to manage/not-manage the opening book, EGTB files, etc. I would like it to know if someone claims an illegal move that the move really was or was not illegal. I would like the protocol manager to be able to manage tournaments. This is such a common need that I am surprised it is missing. Some of the roles of chess engines are foolishly redundant. Why must ever program on earth write an interface to the Nalimov tablebase files? Isn't one good implementation enough if we put it into the protocol manager? The response is: "That's not the role of the protocol manager." My response is: "It should be. Let's call it the 'game executive' instead." I would also like to see a formal specification for opening books standardized. You can still manage your own book if you like, but it would be nice to have some ready made interface for this tedious task.
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.