Author: Peter Schäfer
Date: 10:16:35 03/09/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 09, 2005 at 12:28:41, Pallav Nawani wrote:
>On March 09, 2005 at 12:13:26, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>
>>The Anthony WB/UCI comparison:
>>
>>+UCI:
>>
>>Interface is cleaner & easier to implement, not being based on the crappy GNU
>>chess protocol.
Don't think so. Both protocols are pretty easy to implement.
There are a few odd things in UCI:
* engines can't resign and decide about draw !?
* UCI's "stateless" approach causes some headaches to engine authors
and is usually cirumvented by transmitting large move lists all the time
(wouldn't call that clean...)
UCI has two obvious advantages:
(1) parameters can be configured nicely in the GUI
(2) there is a clearly defined syntax for PVs which makes is a lot easier
for GUIs to display diagnostic output.
If these two points were included in the XBoard protocol (will there be "XBoard
3" ?) I would prefer XBoard to UCI.
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.