Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 15:03:10 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 17:54:52, martin fierz wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 16:03:18, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 15:11:14, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:54:42, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:43:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:41:39, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>If the GUI can play half the game (opening moves), then it is part of the >>>>>>chess-playing software. The engine/GUI are one chess-playing entitiy. >>>>>>Therefore, you point is egregiously in error. >>>>> >>>>>Who says the GUI must play the opening moves?! >>>> >>>>Nobody says that the GUI "must" do one thing or another. It is the seperation of >>>>tasks. For example, you can let the interface play the opening moves, and do the >>>>draw claim; let it only do the draw claim; do nothing; etc. There is no strict >>>>border between the engine and the interface (read the WinBoard and UCI >>>>protocols). I don't see how you can make the seperation... >>> >>>i suggest: the engine has to deal with any position that is not in a database >>>(opening/endgame). the GUI can deal with all "mindless" tasks, meaning all >>>database lookups. >>> >>>point being, that whether you let the GUI execute the moves in your book or >>>whether you let the engine execute the moves in your book doesn't matter, both >>>will choose the same moves if you give them the same book. same once you're in >>>the tablebase. in this sense, it doesn't matter whether you let the GUI or >>>engine do this. >>> >>>but choosing whether to claim a draw or not is a conscious decision by the >>>chess-playing entity (be it human or computer). you are not forced to claim it, >>>and therefore you must make a decision whether you want to claim it or not. >>>since this is not a mindless database lookup, i believe the engine should decide >>>whether it claims the draw or not. >>> >> >>If the programmer is so concerned about when *not* to claim a draw, he can write >>his own interface, or run under winboard which leaves the decision to the >>engine. But the mere fact that the programmer has decided to run his engine >>using UCI indicates that he wants every draw to be claimed. > >...or perhaps that he decided to use UCI because it has some other advantages >compared to winboard?? my engine runs under both UCI and winboard. i didn't make >it UCI compatible because UCI interfaces claim a draw! that is just a "side >effect". i would run my engine under arena because i like that GUI. i certainly >wouldn't have thought of using UCI because i want every draw claimed! > >>It is absolutely >>irrelevant whether the claiming is done by the engine or by the interface. >not at all. gerd has just made another very valid point: let's say i sacced a >piece and started giving a perpetual. my opponent plays his 3rd repetition and >does *not* claim the draw for whatever reasons. now, my engine should realize >that it can either claim the draw, or use the entire rest of it's time looking >for a win, instead of the normal few minutes. this may happen sometimes, that >you have a perpetual but you can also bring in some reserves, slowly, and that >the engine needs a long time to see that. >if you were using the interface to claim the draw, it would simply claim the >draw after the opponent has repeated the position 3 times. which *could* be a >mistake... Then use your own interface... > >>And the question I have asked here several times without anyone answering: How >>did you expect the Jonny engine to claim the draw, if not via the interface? >with an info string perhaps? the engine can still send messages to the operator, >even if it's not a pop-up box. > >cheers > martin
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.