Hello,
what is the reason (in your opinion) that Soberango must be adjusted manually (choice: WinBoard-UCI) during the embedding procedure in contrast to other chess programs which a recognized "automatically" with the suitable protocol by this interface?
http://www.playwitharena.com/?Download
http://www.luisbtenis.com.ar/Soberango/Soberango.html
Best wishes,
Norbert
implementation of Soberango current version into Arena GUI
Moderator: Ras
-
Norbert Raimund Leisner
- Posts: 1643
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 4:57 pm
- Location: Augsburg - Germany
-
hgm
- Posts: 28515
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: implementation of Soberango current version into Arena G
Unfortunately the major protocols are not designed so they announce themselves at startup. It is the GUI that must first set them in a protocol mode by sending the command 'xboard' or 'uci'. But 'uci' is nota valid CECP command, and 'xboard' is not a valid UCI command. So there is no way knowing what would happen if you make the wrong choice. The engine could even exit by this, or get in a mode where it is insensitive to any command.
I don't know the details of Arena's protocol detection (whether it sends 'uci' or 'xboard' first, and how it draws any conclusions from the reply or the absence of a reply within a reasonable time). A proper UCI engine should at least reply with 'uciok' at some point when you send it 'uci'.
It would have been nice if in all protocols the engine would have to open the dialog with a line that could contain anything, but would have to have the nameof the protocol as a word in it. (Like: "this is a UCI engine" or "this engine supports both xboard and uci protocol".) Then GUIs could just scan the line for the names of the protocols they support, and pick the most suitable one. But alas.
So as matters stand automatic type recognition is an intrinsically unreliable process, that should not be used.
I don't know the details of Arena's protocol detection (whether it sends 'uci' or 'xboard' first, and how it draws any conclusions from the reply or the absence of a reply within a reasonable time). A proper UCI engine should at least reply with 'uciok' at some point when you send it 'uci'.
It would have been nice if in all protocols the engine would have to open the dialog with a line that could contain anything, but would have to have the nameof the protocol as a word in it. (Like: "this is a UCI engine" or "this engine supports both xboard and uci protocol".) Then GUIs could just scan the line for the names of the protocols they support, and pick the most suitable one. But alas.
So as matters stand automatic type recognition is an intrinsically unreliable process, that should not be used.