Author: F. Huber
Date: 12:40:33 03/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2005 at 13:54:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >The UCI protocol is flawed because it does not store the engine setup >information. You have to communicate this stuff every time. Still, this part >of the UCI protocol is clearly better than Winboard, because it at least is >uniform. Hi Dann, there´s absolutely nothing flawed in the UCI protocol, at least not in your mentioned problem of storing the engine setup! The reason why this ´setup storing´ can´t be found anywhere in the UCI protocol, is simply that this is either the task of the GUI _or_ the engine itself - whoever wants to implement this! Do you need examples? Well, e.g. Arena actually stores _every_ engine option in the registry! And e.g. ChestUCI has its own INI-file, where it also stores all of its settings (moreover you can even specify the ´behaviour´ of this INI-file in 3 different ways with a special commandline parameter for ChestUCI)! Regards, Franz.
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.