Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 11:47:20 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 14:30:00, Sune Fischer wrote: >It has chessbase written all over it, if chessbase had not supported it it >wouldn't have come to be. Bull. True, because ChessBase actively 'supports' (with some bugs and limitations) it, it's gotten more popular. But Shredder already supported it (before the involvement from CB) and this is still one of the best if not the best interface out there. I made my thing support UCI to get it to work under Shredder, before CB started to support it. If other people support UCI because they want their stuff to run better in Fritz, that's their problem, but I don't see how this means that UCI would exist without ChessBase, because it already existed when ChessBase didn't support it yet. >Arena also supports WBI and WBII, so why do we need UCI? You can't conveniently set options with WB. No standardized way of setting hash and hashtables. This alone makes it unusable for professional programming IMHO. Not to mention the difference in cleanness. >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. That's your personal opnion - I completely disagree. -- 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.