Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:40:01 06/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2003 at 17:25:52, Joachim Rang wrote: >On June 21, 2003 at 17:17:47, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On June 21, 2003 at 17:15:07, Richard Pijl wrote: >> >>>If an FRC engine castles, Ruffian will reject the move and lose on time. How >>>often do you think that will happen? >> >>Wrong. The GUI would have to support FRC in a way that Winboard and UCI engines >>would understand. Instead of sending the move that the opponent played, the GUI >>would send the FEN string, and Ruffian would never reject any move (because >>there wouldn't be any moves, only FEN positions). >> >>So the statement that all WB/UCI engines can play legal FRC is true. Whether or >>not there is a GUI that supports that method of playing is irrelevant, because >>one could be created without too much work. > > >you are right. But this would be the second-best solution. I would not recommend >to implement such a feature in Arena because it will give less incentives for >programmers to add the FRC-Rules to their programmes. I do not agree. Now their program do not lose in FRC because they do not play this game. You can claim that maybe if they see that their program lose in FRC because of not considering castling then they may have more motivation to stop the losses. I think that the demage from not considering castling is significant and my first guess is 150 elo In the long run it would >be nice, if programs could play FRC with all possible moves including castling, >don't you agree? In contrary to underpromotions castling will be much more often >a good move in FRC. I agree It would be sad if most programs would not consider all >legal moves in an FRC-game. It is the situation today and I doubt if most programmers are going to implement FRC. Uri
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.