Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:08:39 09/12/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 12, 2002 at 11:18:10, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On September 12, 2002 at 11:02:51, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >[snip] > >>You are looking at a derivative of WB-II. :-) >>With the "feature" command, you can alter winboard in any way you want keeping >>compatibility to WBII. > >I don't know what Russell is looking for, but I'm definitely not looking for >WB-XYZ. While it's true that certain things can be added with the >feature-command, you can't change the fundamental way it works. For example Personally, I do not want to change the fundamental way winboard works at all. The design itself is very good for me. All things that I can Imagine I would need are either 1) a problem that can be solve with new a "feature" 2) a problem with the implementation of the GUI and has nothing to do with the protocol itself. it's >not likely that we can add a "feature >dontBehaveStupidAndGetRidOfThePingPongStuff=1". You have that already in the protocol, it is feature ping=0. BTW, why do you want to avoid ping and pong? Why don't you like it? I seems like a nice way to avoid races. Regards, Miguel >It seems that we have different thoughts about that - some people miss feature >XYZ in (x|win)board/UCI. For these people the "feature ..." command of >(x|win)board is enough. (dunno whether UCI has something similar, but I assume >it's similarly 'expandable') The other group of people simply don't like the >fundamental things of the protocol(s) [in my case, the ping/pong stuff of >(x|win)board, the the_gui_will_tell_you_when_to_ponder things in UCI] For these >people (well, maybe I'm the only one in this group, heh) a completely new >protocol would be needed. > >Sargon
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.