Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: UCI - Worth Implementing?

Author: Dieter Buerssner

Date: 13:43:38 12/08/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 08, 2002 at 15:29:55, Daniel Clausen wrote:

>
>On December 08, 2002 at 13:51:57, Dieter Buerssner wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>IMO, it would mean, that you need to enhance the WB/XB protocol and to find
>>somebody, to implement such enhancements.
>
>I agree. While the 'solution' write-config-file-and-restart-the engine works,
>it's very ugly. (and not a solution from a technical POV) So a change in the
>xb/wb protocol would be much better.

Daniel, I think we pretty much agree. However I do not consider the
"write-config-file-and-restart-the engine" a solution at all (without any change
to the protocol). How could a WB/XB-GUI/driver know, which is the name of the
ini file. How could it know, which are the available commands in there? How
could it know about the allowed synthax?

I think, for something like this, really some sort of "contract" between the GUI
and the engine is needed. In UCI, the engine tells to the GUI, which options are
available, and additionally some other options are agreed about implicitely
(NalimovPath, Hash, OwnBook). By telling these options to the GUI, the engines
agrees, that all those are changeable, when it does not search (in "force
mode"). The engine also can give some constraints to the GUI (like
minimal/maximum available values). In the WB-protocol, this is not possible at
the moment. It may change, when you contribute it :-)

Regards,
Dieter




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.