ChessUSA.com TalkChess.com
Hosted by Your Move Chess & Games
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal
Post new topic    TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions Flat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
H.G.Muller



Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 12776
Location: Amsterdam
PostPost subject: Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal    Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:24 pm Reply to topic Reply with quote
michiguel wrote:
For clarification:

You assume there is "two sets" of moves.
Set A: contains moves that will be considered at the root
Set B: contains moves that won't be considered at the root.
By default, all legal moves are in Set A.

exclude takes a move from set A to set B.
include takes a move from set B to set A.
include all takes all moves in set B and place them in set A. Of course the ones that were in set A, remain in A.

Is that correct?


Indeed, this is what I intended.

My original idea for a GUI implementation would not use include at all. The user would indicate moves to be excluded by playing them on the board with some extra signalling (like keeping a key pressed, or starting with a double-click). The GUI would undo the move as soon as it is made, and send the exclude command for it.

Some time later (and considering the typical difference in clock speed between computers and humans, seen from the computer as an eternity) the user could then exclude another move, etc. I could not imagine why anyone would want to include a move back in once it is excluded, but never do this kind of stuff, so what do I know?

But if people want to have a 'palette' with all legal moves that they can disable or re-enable interactively at will, it seems easiest to immediately send include or exclude as soon as the user changes the state of a move.

The commands would only be sent in analysis mode. I don't see why that would be a problem. Switching to force mode to send them would require a new analyze command after it, which presumably would start a new search. If that is acceptable, the engine might as well start a new search on reception of any of these commands by itself. But I don't want to deny engines the right to be 'smart': when receiving an exclude for a move that is currently not best, and currently not being searched, they could just mark it as disabled in the root, but otherwise continue the current search.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Subject Author Date/Time
WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:52 am
      Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Julien MARCEL Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:18 pm
            Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:59 pm
                  Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Miguel A. Ballicora Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:42 pm
            Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Ferdinand Mosca Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:34 pm
      Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Daniel Shawul Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:12 pm
            Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:21 pm
                  Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Karlo Bala Jr. Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:56 pm
                        Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:11 pm
      Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Ferdinand Mosca Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:46 pm
      Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Miguel A. Ballicora Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:48 pm
            Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:51 pm
                  Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Miguel A. Ballicora Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:01 pm
      Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Evert Glebbeek Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:28 am
            Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Tue Mar 13, 2012 10:05 am
                  Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Miguel A. Ballicora Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:39 pm
                        Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:24 pm
                              Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Piero Teixeira Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:23 pm
                                    Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:16 am
                              Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Miguel A. Ballicora Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:46 am
                                    Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:47 am
                                          Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Michel Van den Bergh Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:16 pm
                                                Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Miguel A. Ballicora Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:55 pm
                                                Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Wed Mar 14, 2012 4:17 pm
                                                      Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Michel Van den Bergh Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:30 pm
                                                            Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:42 pm
                                                                  Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Michel Van den Bergh Wed Mar 14, 2012 6:30 pm
                                                                        Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:27 pm
                                                                              Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Michel Van den Bergh Wed Mar 14, 2012 7:35 pm
                                                                                    Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Dadi Jonsson Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:01 am
                                          Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Miguel A. Ballicora Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:52 pm
      Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Ferdinand Mosca Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:41 am
            Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:10 am
                  Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:02 am
                        Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Ferdinand Mosca Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:04 am
                              Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal H.G.Muller Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:18 pm
                                    Re: WB protocol (and UCI?) extension proposal Ferdinand Mosca Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:13 am
Post new topic    TalkChess.com Forum Index -> Computer Chess Club: Programming and Technical Discussions

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Enhanced with Moby Threads