Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 16:03:08 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 17:31:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>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." I agree, that this is a bad thing. Fritz (the interface) can draw a game for the engine because of the incomplete TB problem, when the engine itself would have no problem with the position. But, it has not too much to do with the protocol - at least not for the protocols discussed here. >>Some other disadvantages: It misses a new game and a result/end of game command. > >UCI??? Yes, I meant disadvantages of 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... It will not know under WB either. A WB-GUI (say Scid, CB, Shredder Classic, many more) can analyze a game with any engine. They will not do it in "analyze mode", but rather in "normal search mode". The reason I suggested in another post, that such information should be given to the engine in any case. 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.