Author: Tony Werten
Date: 05:01:47 02/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2005 at 05:10:23, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On February 24, 2005 at 05:02:37, Tony Werten wrote: > >>I see no logical reason why an interface needs to know the move I'm going to >>ponder on. It's none of its bussiness. What does it need it for ? > >For example, to show it to the user, together with the PVs. I as a user want to >see PVs of both opponents, when I watch an engine game. So the gui needs a text that represents the pv. It doesn't need the pondermove for that. The engine can provide that if the programmer wants. > >For example, to show it later in the PGN. The engine can provide that after the game, if the programmer wants to allow that. > >For example, to make the UCI protocol possible. This one I don't get. My point is that the gui doesn't "actively" needs the move. I know that from a "passive" pv text it can subtract the pondermove, but if the UCI protocol specifies that as "is not done by the interface" at least one can consider that as cheating. Tony >Some seem not to like it - they >will use other things. Others do like it (including many users, who prefer not >to learn command line arguments or ini fily synthax for many engines). Of course >you could argue, that this does not need the UCI way of pondering. But >practically, you have no alternative to UCI, if you want this. > >Regards, >Dieter
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.