Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 14:40:35 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 17:32:07, Sune Fischer wrote: >On October 06, 2002 at 16:51:09, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On October 06, 2002 at 14:30:00, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>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. >>> >> >> >>Respectfully, may I state that the computer (and the programmers) exist for the >>benefit of the user. It's all about the user. > >You are right, the problem is the user doesn't realize the fighting for control >that is going on underneath between GUI and engine. > >From a purely design point of view I don't like for the GUI to be in any from of >control. If the GUI has power to play moves on its own, or commands very >strictly what the engine should do and when, then the GUI is more than just a >GUI, it becomes half a chess engine. > >So I don't think we will agree, we can only exchange arguments, bottom line it >is a matter of taste. I think both protocols have their weak and strong points, >perhaps we can at least agree on that much;) > >-S. Absolutely. My statement about the user was more generic and philosophical -- I am not qualified to make detailed comments on UCI versus WinBoard since I haven't learned all the technical details of both (either, really). :-)
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.