Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:43:27 03/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2005 at 15:40:33, F. Huber wrote: >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? Yes, by all means. >Well, e.g. Arena actually stores _every_ engine option in the registry! And it should be in a database. >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)! And what a horrible place to do it. >Regards, >Franz.
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.