Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:09:45 03/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2005 at 15:56:46, Tim Foden wrote: >On March 14, 2005 at 12:45:22, Michael Yee wrote: > >>(2) New commands from GUI to engine : getstartpos, getmovelist, getresult >> >>This enables the protocol to be truly extensible since variants that aren't >>officially supported by the GUI can still be supported by letting one engine be >>the "referee" or "arbiter". > >Maybe it would be a good idea to: > >1) allow an extra third engine as a referee. This could be useful in the case >of two engines where you trust neither to be a referee. A tried and trusted >third could be used in this job. > >2) formalise what is required of a "referee" only. This would allow a simple >"referee engine" to be written, to perform arbritration only. It seems (to me) that the referee needs to do much less than a regular chess engine -- probably the only real concern is false claims and improper time control claims. That stuff could be part of a chess server or the GUI itself perhaps. A chess engine usually implies analysis. I do not see any purpose in analyzing anything but draw claims or time control claims.
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.