Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 22:15:49 02/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2005 at 08:01:47, Tony Werten wrote: >>For example, to make the UCI protocol possible. > >This one I don't get. My wording was bad. Pondering as defined in the UCI protocol can only work when the interface knows the ponder move. IMO, knowing the PV as actual chess moves (instead of just any textual representation, where every engine chosses something different - with or without move numbers, some starting at move 1 always, SAN, LAN, coordinate notation) has advantages. It will display it consitently. Also think of an analyse situation, where you want to say to the GUI -> please jump to the end of the PV or include it in the move list as a variation. I did not want to have any WB vs. UCI discussion. You asked one concrete question, and I only gave three examples, for which it is needed/useful. CHeers, 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.