Author: Peter Fendrich
Date: 11:53:22 06/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2003 at 13:03:21, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Brian, > >>>I'm assuming the CB natives have some advanatage over using UCI. >>>If it didnt, then why borther with a CB native? just implement UCI. > >> I agree. Let ChessBase make their UCI adaptation work properly and the engine >> author to write to UCI specs. There was potential to do this with their WB >> adaptor but not knowing the details I can not say why it was dropped. I >> think a reason for ChessBase protocol is so that some engines will not be >> UCI or Winboard compatible. > >oh well, the adaptor story again - it seems that ChessBase is really not capable >to built a good adapter to anything... Nearly each month a new bug in their UCI >implementation is reported, I really can not understand why this happens - so >for an engine programmer there is really the question why to bother with UCI >when the CB GUI does not support it correctly ? -> besides Malin's >WB2UCI-Adapter is really a nice tool, many engines work fine with it. > >About the CB-Protocol: Afaik it is even different from engine to engine so that >you can't be sure that something that works with Fritz will also work with >Junior etc. -> I would really like to see CB stopping this native crap and only >publish UCI engines... They might not work correctly in their own GUI (oh, maybe >they will spent THEN some work in the UCI adaptor) but extremely well everywhere >else... with the CB-UCI-Adaptor it is somehow the same story then it was with >the CB-WB-Adaptor: thousends of versions but none is working correctly. And all >other GUIs have no real problem to implement it correctly. I have here >ChessAssistant, ChessPartner, Arena etc. in mind... > >But well, such behaviour is not uncommen - market leaders, when the leadship is >big enough, can always answer: "Who cares, profits are still going up - if one >of the other companys will get a problem, we buy them..." (Sounds a bit like >Microsoft... :) Not all! I think that Chessmaster made a reasonably good WB-implementation. The only problem I can remember was that they sent the "." command to th enegine during it's thinking process. Not exactly the WB-protocol but a piece-of-cake to adjust to. /Peter >Greets, Thomas
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.