Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:35:26 09/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 02, 2002 at 09:07:52, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On September 02, 2002 at 08:49:58, José Carlos wrote:
>>
>> There're GUIs that resign, there're some that check legality of moves. Some
>>even offer draw! Oh, and some of them control the EGTBs. And some clear the hash
>>tables, or the learning tables, or...
>> In summary, you can make any definition you want. In my case, my engine does
>>all of this itself. I define a GUI as a "graphical user interface". No more, no
>>less. An interface just and only takes care of communication. So my book code is
>>part of my engine.
>
>I don't see how any GUI could possibly clear my hashtable without access
>violation (I think it must be a command to the engine?).
>
>EGTB same story of course, the work was performed by the one making the EGTBs.
>Also with the resigning - it is the GUI resigning and not the _engine_ (isn't
>all of this obvious?).
>
>
>> Your definition of engine is "everything but what a GUI can do". Well, then an
>>engine is nothing, because a GUI can search as well, why not.
>
>So if implement UCI in my program and have it play in the chessbase gui with the
>Kure book, is it still _my_ engine playing the opening moves?
>To me it seems clear my engine has nothing to do with it, and it would be the
>GUI/book playing the opening.
>
>I'm not saying it is a bad thing, on the contrary it is a very flexible
>arrangement, but the book and engine are two different things in this case.
>
>No book can make the engine play better or worse, the engine is still the
>engine, 'the book' just leaves the engine in some position to take over.
>Some books may be tuned for the individual engine, that case is different, one
>could argue that the engine helped decide what should be in the book (like
>learning I guess).
>But if my engine played with the Kure book in the chessbase gui this wouldn't be
>the case, and the same for most other engines which have pgn generated books or
>are playing through UCI.
>
>Everything is 'IMO' of course ;)
^^^^^
That's exactly my point. It's just a matter of definition (and implementation,
of course). I won't run Averno under any GUI that controls the book because _I_
consider the book part of my engine. I've spent many hours on the book code, so
I won't allow anyone else to take control of that part of _my engine_. That's
about it. Any definition is fine, as long as it is clear what we're talking
about. And in the case you mention, it's of course correct "according to that
definition".
And that's also why I'm against "the UCI way", because then the GUI does
things I consider the engine should do.
José C.
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.