Dear Don,
I few weeks ago I was busy with Computer-Tomography. I stumbled about the
question today when I started to implemented GTP for the new Suzie-GUI.
I know that there will be no immediate changes. But as programms become more
search-based the focus will change. Then at least UCI should b
Hi Chrilly,
Your beating your head against the wall on this one. UCI is far
superior, but unfortunately the standard is GTP which actually
is far superior to what we had before.
There was a pretty good discussion a few weeks ago and the
computer go communitiy wants a highly sychronous and ri
On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 10:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> I am a big fan of UCI, and it would be great if we could use a similar
> interface for go.
>
> The only part I would probably not try to reproduce for go is the
> pondering scheme. In chess assuming the opponent had moved the
> predicted mov
-
From: "Álvaro Begué" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] GTP3 should be UGI
I am a big fan of UCI, and it would be great if we could use a similar
interface for go.
The only part I would probably n
In chess UCI has widely replaced xboard. I think UCI is better than xboard.
Chrilly
- Original Message -
From: "Joshua Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] GTP3 should be UGI
S
I am a big fan of UCI, and it would be great if we could use a similar
interface for go.
The only part I would probably not try to reproduce for go is the
pondering scheme. In chess assuming the opponent had moved the
predicted move was the most popular choice by far, so it was ok to
have it ingr
Sounds good, but the xboard protocol is also very nice.
Though a UGI sounds like a good step.
-Josh
On 4/11/07, Chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am implementing currently for the Suzie-GUI GTP-2. I think this protocoll
has a number of shortcomings.
a) There is only a very strange way to set
