Author: Peter Schäfer
Date: 00:51:22 03/11/05
Go up one level in this thread
Michael, please resist the urge to create a completely new protocol. I'm certain that your design will be cleaner, more elegant, etc. BUT: there is a huge number of existing XBoard engines and GUIs out there and authors won't just happily jump to a new protocol. So in the best case we'll end up with three standards and more confusion ;-( Gradual improvements to XBoard will be accepted more easily. Even if the protocol is a bit ugly, it has proven to be useful; and having an established standard is much, much more valuable than a state-of-the-art design (as much as I like clean software...) some comments on your ideas: > >(1) An important thing for synchronization is that no matter what command engine >recieves from gui, the engine must eventually output some indication that it's >finished, e.g., "ready," "bestmove," etc. depending on the current state. > >(2) Engine never starts thinking on its own (and doesn't automatically make own >move). > don't see a big demand for that. GUIs are able to handle engine "modes" right now, so why apply restrictions ? -- Peter
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.