Author: Michael Yee
Date: 19:24:12 03/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
Thanks for this start... I've never done an analysis like this for a protocol before, although it sounds similar to making/discovering a requirements spec, coming up with "use cases", etc. For clarification, are you simply saying that we should keep an explicit record of scenarios like these (as a kind of "motivation" in the spec)? Or are there particular scenarios that you think are currently unsupported? Most of the scenarios you listed (although as you mentioned, not nec a complete list) can be satisfied by a either WB or the proposed XCI (each with help from a GUI). (UCI doesn't seem to allow draw by agreement.) Even Scenario 5 could be supported since an engine could request the path to other engines and then manage them through whatever protocol it wanted. Since the proposed XCI is essentially a hybrid/superset of xboard and uci (that also aspires to be extensible and easier for the user/programmer), it seems like it would support most imaginable scenarios. So maybe your point is that it's *too* flexible and thus not parsimonious or clean enough? Thanks, Michael
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.