Author: Amir Ban
Date: 09:44:16 09/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 1998 at 09:05:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > That's not how the DOS autoplayer worked, and besides you are confusing the auto232 serial protocol with Donninger's DOS autoplayer. >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). Then why is SSDF and everybody else playing thousands of auto232 games and not winboard games ? >But auto232 is incomplete, and cryptic, which are my two main complaints (if >you factor out the DOS version with the timing problems). > I implemented auto232 in both the DOS and Windows versions. Some minor problems but the thing works. I didn't deal with any timing problem. > > >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. Currently you can't play any move, and you are worried about under-promotions ? > >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... > The inability to conclude a game without that horrible timeout is indeed the worst part of auto232. These are minor issues, that have been discussed before, and can be easily amended without breaking the entire standard. >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.. > What for ? You are thinking about this the wrong way. Nobody abandons an old established standard for such superficial reasons. > >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.. > You can propose a new standard. You can't impose it. It has a chance if the old standard is not too entrenched and if the developers and the users have enough interest to go through the hassle and the cost (and they *always* want a really compelling reason for that). 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.