Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 18:14:21 09/10/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 10, 1998 at 13:11:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 09, 1998 at 21:26:18, Keith Ian Price wrote: > >>I don't buy that as a valid excuse for not adapting a new standard. You could >>keep the already written Auto232 capacity for backward compatiblity, while >>adding the new features to get people (like me) to upgrade. I will buy any chess >>engine so long as it is as strong as Rebel Decade, and has these features of >>ICC/FICS compatiblity, e-mail compatibility, and network compatibility. Even >>though I said that I would not pay $100 for Crafty, I would if it had a UI and >>these features. Computer chess strength is secondary to me. Chess strength can't >>be determined by how a program plays against other programs, only strength in >>computer chess. Features like this are what I would like. Chess System Tal is >>much more fun to play than any of the supposedly stronger programs, but if the >>Windows version has only a Windows interface and a stronger engine, I won't be >>buying it, since it won't be any more fun for me to use than the one I have >>already. I am probably in the minority with this view, but there it is... >> >>kp > > > >I agree totally. the Auto232 standard is gross. Completely gross. There are >many better ways to accomplish this task. First problem is that the message >format is rediculous, with the original auto232 interface not supporting *real* >chess since it didn't allow underpromotion. Then there were the timing issues >that resulted in hangs when a program moved too quickly. Cryptic move format >requiring a tab here, no tab there, etc... The hangs are what I hate most in the current standard. I see that you agreed totally with how I think about Auto232, without me stating it this time. Did you remember my previous posts on the subject, or did you merely read my mind? >None of it made any sense from a software engineering point of view. I would >be more than happy to sit down with a group and work out a standard >communication interface that is easy to implement, easy to parse, and easy to >understand how it is supposed to work. > >We ought to be able to also provide some basic software that will let this work >on both unix and windows boxes (IE I can do the unix part myself, and we can >take that to make a "auto232" library that anyone using unix can call). I have >been trying to study the windows auto232 interface, but it is a nightmare, >still, because it uses the old auto232 message format with two levels of parsing >(which makes little sense). IE I send a somewhat cryptic message to the driver >(cryptic because of a byzantine format) that the driver then modifies and sends >to the other driver over the interface, which has to modify that to send it to >the engine, which has to modify that to interpret what the devil it means. > >That is not necessary. And there is *no* sense in thinking "windoze" only for >this interface, because it can work linux to windows, and linux to linux, as >well as windows to windows, if done correctly. Sounds good to me. I use OS/2, but I will be getting Linux soon. >Anyone interested? Shareware/Freeware guys want to take the lead here and do >this right, once and for all? I'd like to be included in the discussion of the standard. There should be some attention paid to keeping the clocks in sync, however this might best be done. kp
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.