Author: Tord Romstad
Date: 07:45:33 07/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 2003 at 09:38:10, Sune Fischer wrote: >I agree whith those saying it is easier to implement, but the reason for that >is that the engine is running in a dumber state. To a certain extent, this is true. Personally I have no problems with this, but I understand very well that not all programmers are satisfied. >As you well know, at each move the position is setup'ed again. >Normally this will clear hash-, killer- an historytables. This I really do not understand. Why should a program clear these tables between the moves when running in UCI mode? >This is good if you want 100% reproducable games, it is bad if you want to play >bullet or reuse information from move to move, ie. some of the efficiency is >lost. I still don't follow you, I'm afraid. The only potential problem I can see is that it is slightly difficult for the engine to know when a new game is started. >As mentioned learning is made harder and the engine can't resign or offer >draws. Yes, this is really stupid. >So in UCI the engine is not a fully legit chessplayer, it is more like an >analysis tool used by the GUI to play games. >Naturally this makes it "easier" from the programmers point of view, as the GUI >does some of the work for you, but don't confuse "easier" with "better". > >I personally see the winboard protocol as being better, although none of them >are perfect of course. Fortunately both of them are good enough for me. :-) Tord
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.