Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 08:02:51 09/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2002 at 10:12:11, Russell Reagan wrote: >On September 12, 2002 at 03:50:16, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>I don't think a new protocol has any chance at the moment. I have the feeling >>that over time the 'primary' protocol will become UCI (maybe even Crafty will >>adopt to it one day :). The fact that Tim Mann doesn't want to put more work in >>another version of xboard/winboard and therefore this protocol lacks some >>guidance further supports my 'fear'. Naturally I'm a bit more worried about that >>than most here, since UCI would mean windows-only, at least at the moment. > >I don't think a new protocol has "no chance." We won't know until someone >creates one with the needed improvements over Winboard and other superior >features. If a superior protocol was created, it could be made to work with all >existing protocols (or ones created in the future). I think there are many You are looking at a derivative of WB-II. :-) With the "feaure" command, you can alter winboard in any way you want keeping compatibility to WBII. So, nobody stop any GUI writer to come up with improvements over winboard. If Tim Mann is the one that makes the improvement, it will be called WB-III. I see no reason why they cannot add their own winboard features to their GUI. Even the commercials!. People will follow if the additions are good, like multiple time controls. That is really the beauty of WBII. It is very flexible. Even if Tim Mann does not change anything anymore, anybody with a GUI can go ahead and make their own WB-III like protocol. Regards, Miguel >improvements to be made to both Winboard and especially UCI. I don't think >either the UCI protocol isn't meant to be a "GUI" (or if it is, it was very >poorly designed), and that the Winboard/XBoard GUIs aren't very good as far as >providing a graphical user interface for chess engines. I've got quite a few >ideas. Maybe I'll put some work into this. Ideally I would like to get people's >input, but I tried that once, and the only person who seems interested in giving >feedback is Bob, and he doesn't want a new protocol, just a new Winboard >protocol. You can't force people to take an interest, but when discussions about >current protocols occur, people come out of the wood works with complaints. > >>I think the the most important thing about a new protocol would be a good base >>which is robust and flexible enough. (hey, I would do something in XML :) > >How about java? That would save people from having to port the GUI to different >OS's. Then again, all of the Windows people would have to download and install >java, which would certainly be unpopular. So maybe if a new protocol is to >survive it should be C/C++. I dunno. If you have ideas let me know. > >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.