Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 06:40:26 12/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2002 at 05:44:35, David Rasmussen wrote: >I am considering implementing UCI. But first of all, is it worth it? And also, >are there any problems with the protocol? Specifically, are somethings smarter >in the xboard protocol, or is UCI the better protocol throughout? >Are there any free UCI interfaces that will let my engine play on chess servers >like zippy on winboard? IMO it is worth it. Most of all because the protocol makes it possible to control all kinds of engine parameters from within the gui. Example: with a couple of sourcelines you create a checkbox in the gui that can switch nullmove on and off with a mouseclick. And yes, with the free Arena gui you can play at the servers. Whether it is better protocol than Winboard or not is a religious discussion. I think it's more elegant in it's simplicity and give the user a better, more user-friendly, control over the engine. Some (mostly people who did NOT implement it) complain that the UCI gui actually has too much control over the engine. Imagine the UCI gui resigning for your engine, because some gui option was set at "resign at -5.00" or something. But I don't see that as a problem. Another issue is that the protocol does not provide the game-result, which can be a problem for learning. Some nice things: - resize hash from within the gui - create all kinds of windows-controls (checkboxes, inputboxes) for engine parameters - let the engine play with it's own book OR with the gui-book - some gui's (Shredder) let you even play Nunn-matches - process test-suites from within the gui - various commercial gui's support uci Best regards, Bas.
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.