Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 07:13:11 04/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 09, 2003 at 17:04:33, Russell Reagan wrote: >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 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.