Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 13:16:19 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 14:47:20, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. And what will happen to it if/when they drop it like a bad habit? >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. Okay, but again I don't think free engines and commercial GUIs have much in common, it isn't a very good sales argument, IMO. >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. So it is better to have the GUI play half the game for the engine? Where is the excitement in that? I've also heard there are problems with learning! That alone is reason enough to reject the protocol, from my viewpoint. Last but not least, the engine is running in force mode, this means you either need a new (simpler) protocol for when playing in the console, or you will have to put up with writing "go" at every move... Somehow that doesn't sound very professional or "clean" to me either. I agree the user probably wants some eye candy with buttons and sliders for various settings such as the size of the hash table, but this has nothing to do with professionalism. You can always write it in XML if you want a clean standard. To my knowledge there is still no UCI GUI for linux, the OS of professionals, perhaps Arena can be ported, but until then there is no _real_ alternative to WB, IMO. >Not to mention the difference in cleanness. That is your personal opinion - I completely disagree ;) -S. >>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 0.01 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.