Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Is it time for the Winboard Protocol to go the way of the Dodo?

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 13:02:56 03/10/05

Go up one level in this thread


On March 10, 2005 at 14:29:21, Lance Perkins wrote:

>On the contraty, this is not about bandwidth. Think 'protocol' design.
>
>API's is another form of protocol. When you write your Search function requring
>the alpha and beta values, do you pass these 'integers' as 'strings' and then
>convert them to integers inside the function? The values are naturally integer.
>Why represent them as strings.

Strawman #1.  What does this have to do with anything?

>Since you insist to make this a bandwidth issue, what makes you think that a
>chess engine protocol will not be used over the network? The ThinkerBoard
>package comes with a utility called RemoteThinker/RelayThinker that allows a GUI
>to run from one machine and the engine to run from another machine. Your GUI
>will have no clue that engine is actually remote.

Strawman #2.  What does this have to do with anything?  I already proved with
hard numbers that the bandwidth difference is negligible.

>In protocol design, when you invoke a service, you should be transport-safe. The
>service can be on the same machine or it can be on another machine.

Strawman #3.  What does this have to do with anything?  Clearly any protocol
that goes over a pipe can go over a TCP stream.

>These are very basic computer science concepts.

And horribly misapplied.  If I wanted to read CS 101 again, I would.  You have
exactly two sentences worth considering: "Engines are naturally stateful. Why
invent a protocol that treats them differently."  Which boils down to "I don't
like UCI".  Which is fine, but not exactly the most logical of arguments.

anthony



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.