Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 14:04:33 04/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2003 at 15:38:13, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >That must be "UCI" you are referring to, personally i think it gives the average >user more possibilities, not to mention ease of use. For the more experienced >user winboard might be better, i don't know though. IMO, this debate is along the same lines as actors vs. directors vs. screen writers, etc. The screen writer wrote his script, and it's that person's baby. They don't want some director or producer adding in fluff or taking things away. The director usually has a big ego, so they want to put their mark on a film, impose their "style" on it. The actor also has a big ego and thinks they know best how to act a part, and they also want to leave their mark on the film. Each person sees it from a different point of view and each has different (usually self serving) motives. The Winboard vs. UCI argument is similar, I think. The user wants features and wants to be able to configure anything and everything to their liking, without having to learn how to program, so things like specifying ponder off, hash size, etc. via the GUI is something a user wants. UCI is probably the closest thing to this (aside from commercial protocols maybe). The GUI/protocol creator wants to add support for all kinds of features, because this person is usually more "user centered". Then you have the engine programmer, who has his own ideas about what he wants to user to be messing with. Most engine authors aren't concerned with what the user wants. They are more concerned with their engine being as strong as possible, and so they don't want the GUI/user/protocol to interfere or limit what they can or can't do (now or in the future). I think most engine authors view GUI's as simple methods to play engine-engine matches, or simple ways to play against people on ICS's. If they want to change a feature or configure something, they probably change a config file or recompile. Personally, I think the GUI shouldn't tell your program what to do. I think it should be the other way around. The engine should be able to tell the program what to do, how to look (colors, etc.). Maybe the engine author would like to see the current coverage of the board by one side (for developing a new evaluation parameter, or whatever), and if the GUI was really just that (a graphical user interface to the ENGINE), then the engine could highlight certain squares or whatever it chose. I guess it all boils down to how you see things. Is the GUI serving the engine, or is the engine serving the GUI?
This page took 0.21 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.