Alexander Wagner a écrit :
> >> I think there should be procedures to handle that, and not
> >> me sending commands to some pipe. Imagine what would be
> >> required to touch if you decide that the serious game engine
> >> is not running on stream 3 anymore.
> >
> > This would simply break things.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi!
> Engine communication is not unified because the engines
> have different capabilities (for example the option and
> MultiPV that only exist in UCI protocol, the fact that UCI
> does not understand or convert SAN moves, etc.).
Sure. That is why xboard != uci.
Selon Alexander Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:54:00PM +0100, pgeorges wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> > > Now, the point is how do I see inside scid that the
> > > engine made a move? Is there currently a way to see
> > > this?
> > >
> > You have example code in sergame.tcl f
Marcin Kasperski schrieb:
Hi!
>> Point is: currently scid really refuses every "illegal"
>> move, simply cause scids input methods are bullet proof
>> in the sense that they do not allow for illegal moves.
>> "It can not be there what can not be there" ;)
>
> This is both good and bad.
Act
> Point is: currently scid really refuses every "illegal"
> move, simply cause scids input methods are bullet proof in
> the sense that they do not allow for illegal moves. "It can
> not be there what can not be there" ;)
This is both good and bad.
It is good, as it makes scid perfect tool to v
> > AFAIK current tendency is to use just 'FEN' (not X-FEN) for
> > chess960
>
> FEN can't express all of the castling scenarios in chess960,
> but can certainly handle a variety of starting positions.
> X-FEN is probably more important in terms of exporting
> positions later in the opening or midd
