Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 15:57:12 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 17:46:38, Russell Reagan wrote: >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 >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 >spend 1000 hours working on my opening book, the GUI shouldn't affect any of >those. I don't follow. We are discussing what is the best way to let an engine talk to a gui. Engine strength has nothing to do with that. What's the purpose of a gui in the first place? To make user control over the engine a little easier. So that is a factor. Another factor is the hassle for the programmer. >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. End of story? Yes, I see. Even better, we could test and play tournaments in text-mode and simply type in moves, zero intrusion! That must be optimal, 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. It matters a lot. I can test a lot easier if I can switch on and off various settings with a mouse click, load and throw out engines on the fly, play automated tournaments, switch to the server, change book, or switch it off completely and play a Nunn match. It's more fun. It's good. I care for it. Now tell me how I can do that in Winboard. >>>Note that simple != better... >>If the result is the same it IS better... >Too bad the result isn't the same. Nah, have you actually ever used it? >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. As far as I know Bob, he likes a discussion. And you should too, come on, don't be so deadly serious. Best regards, Bas.
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.