Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 15:17:29 06/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2004 at 17:44:17, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >Well I do not know, whether it would help to explain those points here, >but it is a fact, that UCI and Winboard handle FRC very different. And its >only up to flexible GUIs like Arena today to cover such weaknesses. > >1) Winboard does not support FEN position strings for all WBx versions, > but both (WB and UCI) have to support extended FRC-FEN to be fully FRC > aware, because there FRC positions exist, not expressable in normal FEN. >2) Winboard handles FRC as a variant, which it is not at all. It is a > compatible upper set of chess. Having supported FRC-FEN strings, there > would be no need to distingush between 'normal', 'fischerandom' and > 'nocastle'. The engine simply has to signal to the GUI its FRC awareness, > what could be done easyly in UCI. The GUI then is deciding, whether the > involved engines would play FRC and then support a appropriate starting > position as FEN string. In winboard's case I think it's okay to handle FRC as a variant feature. All these features indicate something outside or above the minimum requirement. For a chess engine the minimum requirement is knowing the rules of chess, to also know the rules of FRC is an additional "feature", in some sence. The word variant may not be entirely accurate, but I think that's a bit of an academic debate. >3) a FRC aware engine is always playing FRC, there is not need to switch > between any modes. >4) in Winboard there is a formal inconsistence concerning the encoding of > castlings. Because of the inherent identification of all possible FEN > positions it makes no sense to demand a different encoding of castlings > in those 'variants' as specified for 'fischerandom'. UCI has a lack of > specification in that case but also no contradiction. > >A possible solution to that dilemma is descripted at a page of my site, and >in slightly different form implemented within the Arena GUI. >[http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/fullchess5b_e.html] Regarding your page on the UCI implementation, is this officially part of the UCI? I'm also wondering what the reason might be for using a combo box instead of a check box, as used for "Ponder"? shine on, -S. >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.