Author: Reinhard Scharnagl
Date: 19:05:11 01/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2004 at 18:25:04, Tord Romstad wrote: >On January 06, 2004 at 15:53:50, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >>In the following answer I gave an example >>[http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?340574]. I still cannot see, how >>to change established protocols. I also described a proposal to an extended FEN >>(so called FRC-FEN), see [http://www.rescon.de/Compu/fullchess5_e.html], but was >>completly ignored by Winboarders. >Of course. You cannot expect the rest of the community to show any interest or >actively >discuss extensions to the standards which are only relevant in some obscure >chess variants >which only you, I, and a handful of other eccentric lunatics would ever want to >play. When >we actively choose no longer to be part of the established community, it is >evident that >nobody cares what we do any more. >But precisely because nobody cares, we are also free to do whatever we want. If >you (or I) >are not satisfied with the protocols, there is no reason to make any proposals >or to try >to start a discussion. We can just go ahead and extend the protocol in whatever >direction >we want (like I do for hexagonal chess), or design our own. Nobody is ever >going to >complain. Well, my proposals took care of the community. They are absolutely compatible (FRC-FEN) or would make things more consistant than split them up. But facts are, that there (naturally) has been only a small interest for those problems. So I have to live with that (slightly understandable) ignorance. The UCI fans have had their ears more open. Here some things had become possible. So the last SmirfMateBeta engine finally was a UCI engine. But GUIs like Arena are made also to have UCI and Winboard engines playing together, what is a great task to try reaching such a goal. But it is silly to have different move encodings to be translated between such engines by the GUI without a real need for that but based only on the ignorance of some protocol enthusiasts. And because of that I am now talking of defining a new and more flexible protocol. But doing so, I am targeted again, why I don't try to reach that goal from inside. It is because it seems obviously to be impossible that way, sorry. And then, why not doing this in a more modern form, and not targeting to serve all possible OSs, because in fact only a minority will need it. Regards, Reinhard.
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.