Author: Harald Lüßen
Date: 06:50:06 04/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2004 at 04:20:09, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >On April 19, 2004 at 04:09:33, Peter Schäfer wrote: > >>On April 17, 2004 at 14:08:06, Stefan Meyer-Kahlen wrote: >> [...] >> >>Hello Stafan, >> >>this seems to be one more point in favor of a "stateful" protocol. >>I don't want to start a discussion about it, because such a descision >>needs careful consideration (and you certainly have discussed it before). >> >>I just want to point out that many engines "de facto" already use a kind of >>stateful approach, because it is common practice to transfer the complete move >>list with every position. >>It is not an elegant solution, but it demonstrates that there is a real demand >>for a stateful protocol. >> >>Best Wishes, >>Peter > > >Transfering the whole move list for every positiion to search indicates a >stateless protocol as the engine need not remember the moves played so far. > >Stefan I don't use the UCI protocol and I only have been reading it once. But if I remember correctly my first reaction reading about this move list feature was: "Oh, my engine has to keep its own move list and it has to compare it with the input to detect if it still is in the same game and the hashtable is still valid." My winboard engine is a state machine and if I changed it to UCI it would use UCI commands as strange input, try to make sense of it and go to the next state. But may be this would be futile and does not make sense. Harald
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.