Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:58:37 12/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 09, 2003 at 19:16:03, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On December 09, 2003 at 14:49:37, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>No. It is simply a different seperation of tasks. In WinBoard the engine is >>responsible for everything, while in UCI the interface is responsible for the >>opening moves and draw claim. That is btw, also the case with native Fritz >>engines. Is there anyway for Fritz or Junior to claim a draw by themselves?! > >If the interface and the program are one entity, then should whomever programmed >the Fritz interface be listed as co-author of all programs which used that >interface? The interface may have made moves for the program (opening book, >tablebases) and can make draw claims. It's possible for the interface to play >most of the game without the engine at all! An author is not allowed to write >code for more than one program, but that is what the interface amounts to when >it becomes active, rather than passive. > >I think this is a strong argument against letting multiple programs use the same >interface, unless the interface is passive like Winboard. That's a totally different can of Poo. If the GUI does _anything_ related to playing the game. IE book, tablebases, time allocation, etc, then one GUI one engine, one program. If the GUI just handles the interface to the game, ie displaying the board, relaying clock times, claiming draws, then I don't mind multiple players, one GUI. Xboard/winboard is a classic example of this. It does _nothing_ related to actually playing the game, it is totally passive. But when fixing this, we need to stop the one book multiple programs problem also...
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.