Delimiter development diary

[shinkarom]

The work on xboard.cpp is still ongoing, but I've updated my already converted files to the LIME 66 version (was LIME 62).

https://github.com/shinkarom/delimiterc ... a261e7271d

[shinkarom]

Converted xboard.cpp.
I selected xboard to convert because I use UCI, and therefore, should start with what I don't like first, to leave the easier parts for later.

https://github.com/shinkarom/delimiterc ... 892693cdc9

[maksimKorzh]

Converted xboard.cpp.
I selected xboard to convert because I use UCI, and therefore, should start with what I don't like first, to leave the easier parts for later.

https://github.com/shinkarom/delimiterc ... 892693cdc9

Why to use both?
Why not just one of them?

[shinkarom]

Having both protocols provides flexibility. For example, Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition supports only XBoard, while LucasChess supports only UCI.

[shinkarom]

Converted attack.cpp.

https://github.com/shinkarom/delimiterc ... e9b9ef7d4e

[shinkarom]

Converted root.cpp.
Not much of a dev diary, eh? No talking, just dry journaling.

https://github.com/shinkarom/delimiterc ... f5adad49a7

[maksimKorzh]

Converted root.cpp.
Not much of a dev diary, eh? No talking, just dry journaling.

https://github.com/shinkarom/delimiterc ... f5adad49a7

It reminds me commits on github
Diary like thread example: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 9&p=875598

[shinkarom]

I'm starting work on uci.cpp.
This brings me to a question: how should Delimiter be credited? Since my modifications won't amount to much change in the search results, it would be unfair to leave Richard Allbert out of "id author".
On the other hand, including him would imply that he personally assisted me in the project, that he worked with this specific repository, which is not the case.
On the third hand, "based on Lime by Richard Allbert" (a la Rodent) is too much text.
On the fourth hand, should I be impatient and not stop with just porting Lime but continue developing Delimiter in my personal direciton, what would be the advice then?

[maksimKorzh]

I'm starting work on uci.cpp.
This brings me to a question: how should Delimiter be credited? Since my modifications won't amount to much change in the search results, it would be unfair to leave Richard Allbert out of "id author".
On the other hand, including him would imply that he personally assisted me in the project, that he worked with this specific repository, which is not the case.
On the third hand, "based on Lime by Richard Allbert" (a la Rodent) is too much text.
On the fourth hand, should I be impatient and not stop with just porting Lime but continue developing Delimiter in my personal direciton, what would be the advice then?

id name delimeter
id author your_name

in readme: lime derivative/port/based on/inspired by/whatever
id name and author in UCI is just a way for engine to identify itself and get distinguished from other engines.

[shinkarom]

Converted uci.cpp.
The author included the UCI option "Ponder" but forgot to do anything with it in parse_option. It seems like this option will for some time do nothing.

https://github.com/shinkarom/delimiterc ... 0f71fc9546

PS. Apologies to Richard Delorme. I'm not trying to steal his status as a resident D expert. Had I thought about using Dumb earlier, it would be a different project in this thread.