Author: Joseph Tadeusz
Date: 07:22:21 02/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2005 at 01:15:49, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >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 Get a life, man.
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.