Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 20:07:52 04/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2005 at 16:15:23, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >Steven, I agree with your points about the deficiency of "ce". Personally, I >like the UCI method. For the score, besides the typical pawn value evaluation, >it spells out mate scores, and also can flag the score as upper bound or lower >bound. Did you have a look at the UCI protocol? Perhaps, that scoring might fit >naturally to EPD. Perhaps even giving two bounds might be useful (for some >engines). Saying something like a <= score <= b. FOR Things like illegal, >perhaps another tag might be useful. I looked at the UCI spec a while ago and I agree with Hyatt that such an interface attempts too much control over a client program and also assumes too much about a client's internal organization. Also, I seem to remember that it used the old coordinate notation for moves instead of SAN. Let's not ask for too much of what should be a simple interface standard whose external representation should be easily read by humans.
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.