Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 10:56:16 09/11/98
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: > >>On September 09, 1998 at 19:32:18, Moritz Berger wrote: >> >>>On September 09, 1998 at 18:59:21, Danniel Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>I would like to add some other features to the proposal besides auto232: >>>> >>>>1. How about a network protocol for Chess message passing? >>>> >>>> >>>>2. How about allowing connections to FICS and ICC? >>>> >>>>Computer products could even *automagically* register themselves as computers >>>>and cut down on cheating. >>>> >>>>3. How about an automatic email interface for long time controls like KKUP2? >>>> >>>> >>>>Serial port seems a little bit archaic. Same for parallel port. How many >>>>people cannot afford a net card and yet can afford multiple PC's? >>> >>>The big reason why no different standard has emerged so far is the compatibility >>>with old (mostly DOS based) chess programs, namely >>> >>>- Chess Genius 2,3,4,5 >>>- M-Chess PRO 4,5,6,7 >>>- Hiarcs 3,4,5,6 >>>- REBEL 6,7,8,9 >>>- Fritz 3,(5) >>>- Junior 5(Fritz.32 engine) >>>- Nimzo 3,3.5,98 >>>- Shredder 1,2 >>>- Kallisto >>>- CSTal >>>- Crafty (DOS, up to release 14, hopefully soon in 15.x) >>>- Comet >>>etc. >>> >>>Moritz >> >>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... > >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. > >Anyone interested? Shareware/Freeware guys want to take the lead here and do >this right, once and for all? Hi Bob, I too have found Auto232 in Windows to be a right pain in the a***, and I like your idea of setting a better and easier standard. I would like to help, but I doubt that I would be much use, as I am a self-taught programmer and have virtually no experience of programming communications. However, even if I am an ignoramus in this department, I would like to be kept informed so I can (hopefully) make my program compatible with the new standard. I think it would be best if the new standard did not require a third computer to act as a server or "tournament controller", or at least if this was optional, since anyone running a computer chess tournament with a limited number of machines available (eg FSV Summer98 tournament) wants to run as many games as possible concurrantly. If a third computer is needed for communications, it means that machine cannot be used for playing another game of the currant round. Best wishes, Roberto
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.