Author: Michael Yee
Date: 05:46:29 03/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
From reading the responses in this thread, it seems like it's possible to do nearly everything you want in both protocols, although some things are more easy in one than the other (for the programmer or for the user). But since there seem to be only a few quirks of WB2 that people would like to change/enhance, maybe we should just bite the bullet and do it?! Some of the desired features are: - standardized PV - multiple PV - refutations - FRC support - getting/setting engine options As a novice chess programmer, I'd also like the new WB3 spec to be totally explicit about the states and state transitions (and what commands are legal in each state). You can "almost" infer them from the current spec, but some behaviors seem undefined. I would be willing to manage this (i.e., gather feedback, draft/update the proposal, etc.) if no one else wanted to. Is anyone interested? Michael P.S. In no way am I trying to wrest control away from Tim Mann... I just got the feeling that he wanted to limit his involvement.
This page took 0.01 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.