Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:05:33 09/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 1998 at 11:06:30, Amir Ban wrote: >On September 12, 1998 at 13:22:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >> >>Again I'm not blaming *you* for anything. You simply wrote something for >>windows that remained compatible with something that works on DOS. The >>"protocol" you chose to be compatible with is, however, still ugly. It has >>too many missing things. Requires a oddball move format (xboard lets you >>specify SAN or coordinate-algebraic as you wish), and so forth. *none* of >>which was your fault. So don't take my criticism of auto232 as a knock on >>you at all. It is a knock on the "protocol" that is simply lousy... >> >> > >Bob, > >This "protocol" that you mention is the auto232 protocol. This "protocol" >enables many users to "play" many "games" between "programs" that "support" it. >Among other things, it is responsible for most games on the SSDF "rating" >"list". > I've never said otherwise... I have two problems withit: timing issues that ought not exist and protocol deficiencies that make legal chess a problem in some games... >This protocol is not without merit. For one it depends on serial interface only, >the simplest and most universal communication. (No, auto232 is not even remotely >dependent on DOS or Windows). Another merit is that people like Stefan have >already done most of the work and are giving everyone the code for free. >Its greatest merit, though, is that it already exists and is already supported >on 20 or so different programs. Which means that you can easily join into the >club and be able to play with everybody else. actually auto232 is dependent on DOS (the original version) due to the command-line buffer stuffing approach it took. And that was the only way to make the non-auto232 programs use auto232, by scanning the graphics memory to see when the board is updated and then send that to the other program via a serial cable and the dos console-input buffer... notice that winboard protocol is also supported by 20 programs or more, and that at least one *commercial* program will have the winboard protocol support included soon (I'll leave it to the programmer to spill the beans if he wants). But auto232 is incomplete, and cryptic, which are my two main complaints (if you factor out the DOS version with the timing problems). > >The point in your criticism of the protocol is lost on me. Who cares about the >move format, or if it supports SAN or whatever ? As long is it's what the >protocol requires ... Sure you can "improve" it (I think you are really talking >about programming taste and style), but the result will be that no other program >will understand you, because you are not following the protocol, which means you >will not be able to play games, which is *all* we wanted to achieve here. > first criticism: no under-promotion. I've lost drawn games and drawn won games due to this sort of problem, when a beta version of xboard didn't handle underpromotion either. second criticism: incomplete. Can't find out who I am playing. Can't find out the rating of who I am playing. Can't offer a draw to my opponent. Can't accept a draw, if offered by my opponent. etc... IE it seems that the timing is right to do a *complete* protocol. Design it right from the ground up. And if the protocol is separated from the engine by using an interface program (as we do with winboard/xboard) then, for a temporary compatibility fix, a special auto232 to new-interface-spec program could be written to filter/adjust messages as needed... with the long-term goal of phasing this kludge out.. >Perhaps you will be in a better position to criticize the format and to suggest >revisions *after* you've implemented it and understood the implications in >changing the way 20 programs behave (some of them 6 years old or more. What do >you think are the odds of getting a revised version of Mephisto Genius 2 ?). I already have auto232 support in crafty... It has been there for two years at least. As far as genius, I don't really care about it. It would be possible to design the "interface program" with an old auto232-compatibility mode so that it can talk to an auto232 program and simply give up the features that the old auto232 protocol doesn't support.. And still, while allowing old programs to "halfway communicate" it would allow new programs to exchange everything that two players could if they were sitting across from each other at the WMCCC, for example... So there's no need to toss out all the old auto232 programs, but it is definitely time to come up with a more complete protocol for *future* programs. > >Amir
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.