Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 08:06:32 03/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 13, 2004 at 07:33:24, Joshua Shriver wrote: >Which is the better protocol to use for a chess engine? >It seems this might be a bias question since each may have it's pro's/con's, but >what are they? What do you all recommend. > >Sincerely, >Joshua Shriver In addition to Peter's good assessment of the pros and cons, I think one main difference is that the Winboard protocol is more geared toward giving the programmer more control, while UCI is geared toward giving the user more control. As a programmer, I used to dislike UCI. After installing and configuring lots of Winboard and UCI engines myself, I really appreciated how easy UCI made it to install and configure engines. Even so, I still prefer Winboard a little, because it views the chess engine as a chess playing entity that is in control of its actions (ponder whatever move it wants, do book learning, offer draws, resign, etc.). UCI is also a little easier to implement, since it is a simpler protocol with fewer commands. If you're going to be distributing a chess engine, it would probably be best to support both (eventually).
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.