Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:30:00 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 14:08:01, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 06, 2002 at 13:46:27, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>Besides from the fact that there are some really nasty issues with UCI (well >>IMO), then I don't think a protocol should be developed by a commercial >company. > >It isn't. UCI is developed by Rudolf Huber and Stefan Meyer Kahlen. >One commercial programmer and one 'freeware' programmer. It has chessbase written all over it, if chessbase had not supported it it wouldn't have come to be. >>And can the engine be called "free" at all if it requires you to _buy_ a >>chessbase product before you can use it? >You can use Arena. Arena also supports WBI and WBII, so why do we need UCI? >>WBII is great, WBIII could be all that we have ever wished for. > >WB was horrible, WBII even more, WBIII would be overkill. The GUI should be as dumb as possible and basicly just pass the moves, the engine must handle everything and play the game from start to finish. So UCI is pure hell for the engine programmer, maybe it has some added flexibility for the user, but the cost is high. -S. >-- >GCP
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.