Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 22:26:09 03/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2005 at 08:39:00, Michael Yee wrote: >The way I envisioned pondering was this way: > >- engine remembers "official" state of its internal board >- engine can temporarily make a predicted move >- engine outputs regular thinking lines where the first move in the pv is always >the pondermove >- when engine gets next move command, it can decide for itself whether it >predicted correctly, etc. > >This approach seems pretty general (and doesn't add any new commands), e.g., an >engine can change its ponder move and alert the gui. > >An alternative solution would be to have a special style of "info" used during >pondering, e.g., > >info pondermove move ... Please show an example with the communication for 2 move or so in a ponder game (without info). In your state diagram, there is only stop during ponder. So when does the move come - after stop. This would not be good, I think, because engines will want to think on in case of correctly predicted ponder move (depending on used time etc. of course). Actually the UCI pondering looks very elegant and easy, and probably will fit to over 90% of the engines. Seems that this cannot be done with a more general ponder model. In this case really move input would be needed during search. Perhaps even more, making the engine side considerably more difficult. You could use both models. An engine that likes the normal pondering could send bestmove pondermove. If only bestmove is sent, more general pondering is requested. But does not look elegant. I don't understand the database discussion: if it has anything to do with the engine/GUI communication I would strongly suggest to resist including such things. The translation suggestion seemed not bad. But it would mean, that the GUI author knows the engine already, and its internal parameters, so that he can do the translation. Or the engine author has to deliver some (GUI-specific?) translation data. How else could a new engine start. Therfore one should make sure, that the default communicated options are understandable already, without any translation process. What I mean is, instead of an option name PS (the author might think this will be translated anyway, sa to pruning style) names that speak for themselves should be used. Which of course gives the quoting problem, when multi word names are allowed (which are easier). I personally do not like those quoting mechanisms too much. But Tord is of course right, in pointing out, that in the UCI spec it can be considered broken (although in practice, it is not too bad). Recently I wanted to search for the two characters \" (with grep) inside PGN files (Many PGN files have wrong tags with escaped quoting). I don't want to remember what I had to type on the command line (could depend on the shell, too). Regards, Dieter
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.