Author: Richard Pijl
Date: 15:06:17 06/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
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). You're confusing protocols and messages/commands. Both the winboard protocol and UCI specify that during a game moves are relayed by sending the move (or in case of UCI, a move list), not by sending a FEN string. I agree that, by using the messages/commands defined in UCI and winboard you can make an engine think it plays a normal game while in fact the GUI shows an FRC game. This will have greater impact than just castling. Other things that won't work include draws by repetition of 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. I think you mean: An existing GUI can be extended to use this method without too much work. And I really hope that GUI will first investigate whether an engine is capable of FRC castling before using this bizarre method that make the Chessbase Winboard adapter looking like first-class software. Richard.
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.