Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:16:57 02/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2004 at 04:48:27, Volker Pittlik wrote: >On February 26, 2004 at 04:26:36, Antonio Redael wrote: > >... >>One thing, I do not understand why the SCID author does not create the >>possibility to load UCI engines also. Is that so difficult? I cannot say. > >Another question could be: why should he? OK, multivariant analysis would be >nice to have. But imagine somewhere along the way yet another protocol is >invented. Some new engines come up supporting only that protocol. Should all >existing applications change their interfaces just because the new engines >doesn't support the existing protocols anymore? 1. There are more than twice as many Winboard engines as there are UCI engines. 2. Almost every UCI engine is also a Winboard engine (including Ruffian, for instance). 3. Of the few exceptions, most are very weak. 4. Of those that are not weak [e.g. Shredder], they are generally commercial engines. If you have the commercial engine, you already have the SCID capabilities in your commercial database system. I do suggest that a nice project would be to form a formal grammar that encompasses both Winboard and UCI protocols (and ChessBase too, if it were published). Using these protocols, form a lexer and a parser and make it a public project. The nice thing about that idea is that people who write chess programs would just have to strap it on. Then they could fiddle with the fun stuff (the chess algorithms) and not the boring, tedious stuff (how to talk to a console and understand a communication protocol).
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.