Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:31:24 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 13:58:16, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 11:31:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I don't consider "pondering" to be "basic stuff". > >I agree with the pondering. However it was no prob for me at all. If UCI only >had a ponder command (without a suggested move to ponder) it would be solved. >Unfortunately, it doesn't. > >>There are dozens of ways >>to do it, and that should be left to the engine completely... Ditto for opening >>book, endgame tables, etc... > >Where is a problem with book and EGTBs in the UCI protocol. You can use your >book just fine - as in WB. The handling of TBs is just better in UCI, because >not every engine has to setup things in their ini files, you get the info you >need from the GUI. > That was a general point about GUIs that usurp too much control. The Fritz GUI is an example. It handles the book, learning, positions that are in the endgame tables at the root... Which means "swindle mode" doesn't work unless the GUI is told to "stay out of this." >>> It leads to more stability IMO. Actually the >>>"control" is no big deal at all. If the engine has provided a pondermove, the >>>gui WILL instruct it to ponder that move. _Always_. What's the problem with >>>that? >> >>Just think about it for a minute. We already have problems with auto232 >>matches and strange things going on. I'm not about to let some foreign >>piece of software control what/when my engine does things. That is for my >>engine to decide, on its own. > >I think, it is clear, that if you do not trust the GUI, there is no way. You >have to trust WB as well ... I can get the _source_ to winboard, so I have no trouble trusting it. :) > >>You say that like winboard is not robust. Which I don't understand. It has >>been robust enough for me to play nearly a million games on ICC/FICS/chess.net >>with no problems of any kind. Not to mention playing matches for testing on >>my local machine. > >I have found small bugs in my WB implementation after 2 years. I am not alone - >see for example Jon Dart's post. The comparision with Crafty is perhaps not fair >- WB has some code especially for Crafty. The common engine writer has to adapt >to it (for example how the analyze output is parsed when Crafty shows book >moves. This will for example make engines not work, that show at the end of the >PV a number in parentheses. Note, that the format of the PV is not defined in >the WB protocol). >>>>- UCI offers more information about the search >>> >>>> How? The engine can tell the operator _anything_ it wants. You can't provide >>>> more information than that. >>> >>>Yes, but I want it "live" on-screen in a windows environment, not in a >>>debug-file. >> >>Check out "telluser"... > >I think, telluser is more or less useless for most of those things. I don't know >of any WB-GUI, that puts telluser messages into some (scrollable) window. >In UCI there are not only the free form messages (ala telluser) but also some >predefined things, like hash filling, CPU usage, tb hits, which are at least in >Shredder 5 displayed continiously at some point of the screen. It is no big >deal, but it makes things look a bit more interesting. There is no need to send >this info. > >Other things, that UCI has: It can restrict the number of moves, which should be >searched. This can have various advantages while analyzing. It can for example >be used as an efficient "poor man's Multi PV mode" (it does not need a partitial >minimax search at the root). Also it has MultiPV mode (I don't support it - the >engines are free to not support it). > >Some other disadvantages: It misses a new game and a result/end of game command. UCI??? > >As others, I think it will be easier to write support for UCI than for Winboard. >The main reason is, that it does not have all the "modes" of WB. Are we in force >mode? In analyze mode - but beaware, and accept moves and setboard during this >mode, etc. This, IMO, will also make it much easier to get it rather bugfree, >fast. And that is a drawback in my opinion. IE Crafty behaves _differently_ in "play mode" as opposed to "analyze mode"... It needs to know... > >Regards, >Dieter
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.