Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 06:45:42 12/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 07, 2002 at 09:29:36, David Rasmussen wrote: >On December 07, 2002 at 08:26:39, Steve Maughan wrote: > >>David, >> >>IMO it is definitely worth implementing but there are those who think it's far >>inferior to Winboard > >Why do they think that? What is inferior about it? The whole design, IMHO. Too much control on the hands of the GUI, I do not like it. UCI is great for an analysis engine, not good for a playing engine. For instance, you have to do ponder only in the way that the GUI decides. You cannot implement easily learning since the engine does not know when the game finished. If you want an engine only for analysis, go for UCI, it supports mutivariation mode, change easily the size of the tables etc. The problem is that the engine receives each time all the moves from the beginning or a position. So, each move is like a new position. What do yo do with the tables? do you erase them? you have to make a decision about this. You can try to do clever things to try to guess if you are in a game or analyzing a real new position, but I wonder if you can implement all that in 4-8 hrs as Steve suggested. I have not implemented UCI because all the things above and because having winboard I fail to see the advantage of another protocol. Then again, since I did not do it, I might be missing something. YMMV, Miguel > >/David
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.