Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 15:56:29 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 16:17:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On August 21, 2002 at 15:52:25, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>This already happens, or the engine is bent to comply to it, if the protocol was
>unknown when the design began.
I don't agree, here. I believe, the main thing is the search engine, and then
you glue it up with the interface. I have no idea, how a yacc grammar could do
this (it would need to do things deep inside the search as well as in some outer
controlling loop).
>>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.
>
>I think if a separate thread reads commands and puts them into a queue, some of
>the difficulty goes away.
I think not. The problem is not detecting the commands, and beeing able to
process them. The problem is that many commands are possible at all sort of
times, and it is not allways really clear what to do. Perhaps it is with very
careful reading of the protocol. I would guess, that more than half of the WB
engines would have serious troubles for some not too typical things (say undoing
moves, aborting a game during search/ponder, ...) with the slighly different
implementations of the WB protocol in different GUIs.
> In particular, handicap time controls where one side has {e.g.} G/30 and the
>other G/57 would be useful for hardware matching contests.
This is possible under UCI.
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.