Author: F. Huber
Date: 12:57:51 03/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2005 at 15:43:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Is the registry no 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. Again, is a INI-file no database? (BTW, the user has absolutely nothing to do with ChestUCI´s INI-file!) This time you´re really speaking _nonsense_! :-(
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.