Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 14:46:38 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 13:44:54, Bas Hamstra wrote: >What matters is that the end-user has the highest level of control, and UCI >provides it a lot more than WB. I believe you are 100% wrong here. If you are developing a commercial engine, then yes, the end-user is a very high concern. If you are developing an engine to compete in competitions, then the user doesn't matter at all. The strength of the engine is the only thing that matters in this case. If I come up with a new idea for things to do on my opponent's time, or I create a new EGTB format, or I spend 1000 hours working on my opening book, the GUI shouldn't affect any of those. Since the VAST majority of engines are NOT commercial, the user is not the main priority in deciding upon a protocol for your amateur engine. Currently Winboard is the most unintrusive, period. >Auto232 is a piece of trash that can do unpredictable things. The average UCI >gui is completely predictable and reliable. You name book/TB/pondering, in all >these cases you can make Crafty-UCI behave exactly the same as Crafty-WB. But it >would be a lot more user-friendly. Once again, unless you are a commercial engine authoer, this doesn't matter at all. >>Note that simple != better... > >If the result is the same it IS better... Too bad the result isn't the same. What is the point in trying to discredit one protocol or the other? Bob doesn't go around attacking UCI. He tells you his opinion if you ask. If a person is intelligent enough to write a chess engine and implement a protocol, surely they are intelligent enough to make a decision that they feel is best. Russell
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.