Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 15:54:07 10/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2002 at 16:16:19, Sune Fischer wrote: >On October 06, 2002 at 14:47:20, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >So it is better to have the GUI play half the game for the engine? This has nothing to do with the protocol issue. Have you read the UCI documentation? Also with the WB protocol, the GUI could play half of the game for the engine. Even if it does so (for example, because the user wants to use the book he wants, and not the book the engine author decided to use) I see no real problem. I see one problem in the case of TB-positions, where for example the CB-GUIs can spoil a win to a draw because of uncomplete TBs, when the engine alone would easyily win it. But again, not a matter of protocol at all. >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. Indeed, learning was/is a problem (at least for me) under UCI. >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. ? Very strange comment from someone, who seemed to have quite some problems to understand the WB-protocol, and why sometimes a go is not needed. I personally see no problem in all those goes, and think it is much cleaner. Other points are certainly debatable. Regards, Dieter
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.