Author: martin fierz
Date: 14:54:52 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 16:03:18, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 15:11:14, martin fierz wrote: > >>On December 09, 2003 at 14:54:42, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:43:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>> >>>>On December 09, 2003 at 14:41:39, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>If the GUI can play half the game (opening moves), then it is part of the >>>>>chess-playing software. The engine/GUI are one chess-playing entitiy. >>>>>Therefore, you point is egregiously in error. >>>> >>>>Who says the GUI must play the opening moves?! >>> >>>Nobody says that the GUI "must" do one thing or another. It is the seperation of >>>tasks. For example, you can let the interface play the opening moves, and do the >>>draw claim; let it only do the draw claim; do nothing; etc. There is no strict >>>border between the engine and the interface (read the WinBoard and UCI >>>protocols). I don't see how you can make the seperation... >> >>i suggest: the engine has to deal with any position that is not in a database >>(opening/endgame). the GUI can deal with all "mindless" tasks, meaning all >>database lookups. >> >>point being, that whether you let the GUI execute the moves in your book or >>whether you let the engine execute the moves in your book doesn't matter, both >>will choose the same moves if you give them the same book. same once you're in >>the tablebase. in this sense, it doesn't matter whether you let the GUI or >>engine do this. >> >>but choosing whether to claim a draw or not is a conscious decision by the >>chess-playing entity (be it human or computer). you are not forced to claim it, >>and therefore you must make a decision whether you want to claim it or not. >>since this is not a mindless database lookup, i believe the engine should decide >>whether it claims the draw or not. >> > >If the programmer is so concerned about when *not* to claim a draw, he can write >his own interface, or run under winboard which leaves the decision to the >engine. But the mere fact that the programmer has decided to run his engine >using UCI indicates that he wants every draw to be claimed. ...or perhaps that he decided to use UCI because it has some other advantages compared to winboard?? my engine runs under both UCI and winboard. i didn't make it UCI compatible because UCI interfaces claim a draw! that is just a "side effect". i would run my engine under arena because i like that GUI. i certainly wouldn't have thought of using UCI because i want every draw claimed! >It is absolutely >irrelevant whether the claiming is done by the engine or by the interface. not at all. gerd has just made another very valid point: let's say i sacced a piece and started giving a perpetual. my opponent plays his 3rd repetition and does *not* claim the draw for whatever reasons. now, my engine should realize that it can either claim the draw, or use the entire rest of it's time looking for a win, instead of the normal few minutes. this may happen sometimes, that you have a perpetual but you can also bring in some reserves, slowly, and that the engine needs a long time to see that. if you were using the interface to claim the draw, it would simply claim the draw after the opponent has repeated the position 3 times. which *could* be a mistake... >And the question I have asked here several times without anyone answering: How >did you expect the Jonny engine to claim the draw, if not via the interface? with an info string perhaps? the engine can still send messages to the operator, even if it's not a pop-up box. 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.