Modern Times wrote:I disagree - up to the engine author to decide how he or she wants to code their engine. And great that a GUI supports both standards. Both standards are valid.
That would throw us back in the 70s, where each Chess program had its ow unique interface, and engine-engine matches were only possible when operators were typing the moves one did into the other. Do you realize that none of the achievements of the CCRL would have been bossible, if people did what you propose ("decide how he or she wants to code their engine")? I can hardly believe you seriously mean that.
If I take your logic, then most people would say that UCI has superseded WB, so producing WB engines is evil and GUIs shouldn't support them anymore...
Well, most engines are actually WB, and new WB engines are produced monthly. So indeed, UCI can be considered evil.
BTW, before the popularity argument can start to carry any weight one of course has to worry first about quality. If something is intrinsically broken, is is not acceptable as a standard. People would prefer things to be non-compliant and work over them to be compliant and fail any time. So your claim that "both standards are valid" is just wrong. The "Arena standard" is NOT acceptable as a standard, because it is intrinsically broken:
* It is not possible to set up positions with correct castling rights when both Rooks are on the same side of the King.
* It is not possible for the GUI to know whether an engine can play Chess960 at all.
If you want to carry over that argument to WB vs UCI, you would quickly come to the conclusion that UCI is not really acceptable as a communication standard, due to the many deficiencies (e.g. no draw handling).