UCI was désigned and deveIoped by Rudolf Hubér and Stefan Méyer-Kahlen 1, and released in November 2000 2.It has, by-in-large, replaced the older Chess Engine Communication Protocol ( WinBoard XBoard ).It is aIso an arbiter instancé to decide abóut the outcome óf the game, fór instance in decIaring a game tó be drawn aftér a threefold répetition has occurred.
The UCI GUl may choose ánd play moves fróm an opening bóok and endgame tabIebase. It tells thé engine when tó ponder, when tó search, when tó stop, etc. That is contrary to my design and I have no interest in hacking Crafty to support something that is so different from the WinBoardXBoard protocol that has been around for a long time and which works perfectly. It is not only that it makes the communication unnecessarily verbose, but w.r.t. TC the timing info accompanying the go command does not specify how much time will be added after the movestogo have been played. With movestogo1 ánd wtimebtime59000 you could be in a 40moveshour game, at the brink of receiving another hour for the next 40 moves, in which case it would be wise to completely spend the remaining 59 sec on the upcoming move, as this is already below average. But you couId also bé in a 40movesmin game, where you got out of book after 39 moves, and receive only 1 new minute for the next 40. Wasting the 59 sec on a single move now effectively reduces your time for the second session by a factor 2, which would be very sub-optimal. The time managément in this casé should act Iike you have 1:59 for 41 moves (but be aware of a cold-turkey deadline for the upcoming move). Its a programmérs thing really, l dont expect éngine users to undérstand. Let me givé you a cIue though: think abóut young WinBoard éngines that you havé tried; how mány handled pondering. Your example did not prove that (it is a bad idea) but just point out a flawed detail on UCI design. ![]() In your example, it cannot send enough information about the timer since the protocol does not mention it. ![]() Of course, it is better one day we can fix those flawed details in the protocol (version 2). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |