UCCI2WB

[Evert]

Well, i was onlytalking about UCI in my last two posts. I wasn't talking about UCCI or USI. This thread might be doing techical stuff, but in this thread http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 11&t=54167 you're talking about adding some things. I'm sorry, but i'm to lazy to wrote in both threads.

You do realise that it helps everyone communicate if you post replies in the correct thread, so everyone can see them in context, right? Presumably you're rolling your eyes at your own unwillingness to contribute effectively to a discussion?

Anyway, in that thread, I linked the UCI/USI/UCCI description, so everyone can see what's already out there and use that as a starting point for discussion, and I made a few suggestions for what I would consider to be useful extensions (some of which, apparently, are already in unofficial use anyway). We don't need for everyone to come up with their own incompatible way to do things - in my opinion it would have been better if UCCI and USI hadn't existed at all, since the needs served by either protocol could have been served by UCI just fine (with obvious minor tweaks, like piece names for those variants and notation for piece drops).

So why can't you just be constructive and comment on that, rather than being hostile and emotional?

I don't think it makes any sense to share some information about UCI extension on an official way at this point.

Again, why so hostile? I really don't get it, and it makes me sad.

[hgm]

Well, this is exactly what I meant when I said that any proposal to enhance UCI meets with extreme hostility.

And as far as I am concerned UCI itself can also be added to the list of protocols that would make the world a better place if they had never existed. It is just holding back progress, and bringing out the worst in people. UCI has many flaws, but the worst is that it exists at all.

[Evert]

Well, this is exactly what I meant when I said that any proposal to enhance UCI meets with extreme hostility.

I just find it utterly bizarre. Who gets this emotionally excited by a discussion of chess engine communication protocols?!

[hgm]

Well, my theory is that this is a psychological effect. Unconsciously UCI users know that it is cr*p, but they cannot admit it to themselves without losing the excuse for why they are using it. So any suggestion that there might be imperfections to it that could be improved on, which forces them to objectively asses it, poses a threat to their mental equilibrium, and is thus forcefully rejected.

But that is just a theory.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Well, this is exactly what I meant when I said that any proposal to enhance UCI meets with extreme hostility.

I just find it utterly bizarre. Who gets this emotionally excited by a discussion of chess engine communication protocols?!

Hmmm, i have no glue why you think that i'm handle this topic emotional ?

For myself the facts are clear and, just for example, hgm isn't the right men for such things, because it's impossible for him to see some things objective. No protocol is perfect of course and i never wrote UCI is a numinous thing.

However, look at hgm last posts. Well, they are no direct personal attacks, but his kind of posts include a foolishness and/or (hidden) malicious act.

Regards
Daniel

[hgm]

So anyone that thinks UCI sucks is 'not objective' by definition, eh? Only when they say they love it, the can be speaking the objective truth?

As someone (quite likely the only one in the World...) having written a GUI implementation for 5 Chess protocols (CECP, UCI, USI, UCCI, TMCI) it seems I am a lot more qualified to have an opinion on this than anyone else.

[Roger Brown]

So anyone that thinks UCI sucks is 'not objective' by definition, eh? Only when they say they love it, the can be speaking the objective truth?

As someone (quite likely the only one in the World...) having written a GUI implementation for 5 Chess protocols (CECP, UCI, USI, UCCI, TMCI) it seems I am a lot more qualified to have an opinion on this than anyone else.

Hello H.G.

I am familiar with the first four.

What is TMCI?

Is the gui implementation all captured in the latest Winboard release or do I have to get Winboard Alien for the variants - and checkers?

Later.

[hgm]

TMCI = 'Third Millenium Chess Interface' is the protocol used by SMIRF. (So the relevant adapter is called Smirfoglot.)

[Roger Brown]

TMCI = 'Third Millenium Chess Interface' is the protocol used by SMIRF. (So the relevant adapter is called Smirfoglot.)

Thanks H.G.

Later.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

So anyone that thinks UCI sucks is 'not objective' by definition, eh? Only when they say they love it, the can be speaking the objective truth?

Hmmm, it looks like you see only black (hater) and white (lovers).

As someone (quite likely the only one in the World...) having written a GUI implementation for 5 Chess protocols (CECP, UCI, USI, UCCI, TMCI) it seems I am a lot more qualified to have an opinion on this than anyone else.

Well, here is a black/white problem too. You can have your own opinion of course and i accept it anyway. But you should accept my opinion too and must live with the consequences. (Because i'm thinking that my information would have a deep impact on the UCI protocol and i can't share it when i know, or at least i must fear, it won't be used in a nature way)

I know your work and some parts are good for the community. Don't forget that i was working on Win-/Xboard as well and created a new winboard protocol draft as well. The most of your protocol implementation affected by adapers and not a GUI. So, there are no big deals.