Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 04:28:54 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 06:22:50, José Carlos wrote: >On August 12, 2004 at 00:32:29, Albert Silver wrote: > >> >>>>Last comment: >>>>Try ProDeo without the UCI adapter, it works better ... believe me! >>>> >>>>Best >>>>Frank >>> >>> Great suggestion, Frank. As I'm so stupid, I never considered running a >>>winboard engine loaded as a winboard engine. How could I forget that? >>> Answer: it was the first I tried. It crashed. I didn't call uncle Frank >>>crying, I just tried the UCI version. It worked. Good enough for me, I don't >>>need anything else. >>> >>> José C. >> >>I'm a bit confused myself. I have experienced no problems with the UCI adapter >>of Pro Deo in Arena, so perhaps there's something strange. I never even bothered >>to load it as a Winboard engine, since the directions given were to run it as a >>UCI engine. I ran a full Nunn match without any problems, and have absolutely no >>problems running the engine to analyze positions. How long am I supposed to run >>it before problems appear? What kind of problems BTW? >> >> Albert > > I was only being a bit sarcastic. I tried winboard version and it crashed. >Then I tried UCI (with the adapter) and it worked. Is has worked fine for me >since then, without problem. Maybe Frank can illuminate us with "the >catastrophic problems of using the adapter". > > José C. Hi José, catastrophic problem :-) A good sentence ... It's not the adapter I have a problem! It's the situation that users are thinking Arena needs Adapter or Converter and this is wrong. Example: http://f27.parsimony.net/forum67213/messages/2108.htm Not a German message :-) All engines are playing without adapters / converters and works fine! Maybe this one explain my messages! Arena don't need an adapter, for Rebel or ProDeo too. The once reason for an adapter I see is that the users get a little bit more information from the engine. But here it's more easy as to develops an adapter to create a new WB protocol. In my opinion it's more easy to go direct the way to the end. Not to go drive over Paris if I have interest to drive from Trier to the next town Schweich. Here are intellegant programmers, think so, and it must be not a big problem to build a group for make the WinBoard protocol better. Often I have the feeling the group is only builded if new things comes (example Stefan's idea with UCI and the discuss I read here). Only anti UCI discuss but not one discuss to solved the problems with WB. If users don't find all the nice information in WB compare the UCI we have all possibilitys to changed that. Best Frank
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.