Author: martin fierz
Date: 08:00:34 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 10:24:12, Omid David Tabibi wrote: [snip] >I don't understand all this engine/interfacedifferentiation. It is one chess >playing unit, and does not matter whether it is built of only an engine, engine >+ interface, or an interface with a built-in engine... > >There is no border line between an engine and an interface. For example, in >WinBoard the engine is solely responsible for the draw claim, but in the UCI >protocol the interface is mainly responsible for claiming the draw. And even >though I believe that most UCI users will start printing draw claim info strings >from the next WCCC (I have already added this), I don't think anyone did that in >Graz. > >So, the discussion should be focused on whether the operator can overrule his >program. The engine/interface discussion doesn't make much sense here. the engine/interface discussion makes a lot of sense! the interface should definitely not be responsible for a draw claim. after all, the draw claim is optional, and so the engine should decide whether it wants to claim the draw or not. when you play a game of chess that ends in a repetition but your opponent might still decide to avoid the repetition and lose, you don't go and claim a draw, do you? because claiming a draw based on 3-fold repetition has something to do whether you mind your opponent deviating and playing on or not, it must necessarily be something the engine decides, and not the interface. in the shredder-jonny game, just imagine how ridiculous it would have been if shredder's interface had claimed the draw :-) cheers martin
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.