Evert wrote:syzygy wrote:
I don't see why he needs to justify it.
Of course he doesn't, and if you think I ever said anything to the contrary you need to read more carefully. I asked for clarification.
You did not "ask" for clarification. You repeatedly insisted that he tell you "the point". The way you presented your "question" was pretty rude in my eyes.
The one who is really rude here is you. Since I don't believe you're as dense as you come across here, I also have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse.
I "repeatedly insist he tell me the point?" Really?
I asked in my first post: "what's the point of a UCI port of Crafty?" As in, what problem does having one solve? That's once.
A straight answer would have been nice, but I guess that would have been too easy.
In addition you took objection to "I realise Crafty's author, Bob Hyatt, doesn't like UCI as it cedes too much control to the GUI" which was merely a statement of fact from the point of view of the OP.
I take no objection to such a statement. I don't care whether Bob Hyatt likes UCI or not or why. What I
said was that I don't understand "as it cedes too much control to the GUI." I still don't, really.
Then when he said he'd leave the "why" to Bob, you were again rude.
Since I didn't
ask him why Bob thinks anything, but asked what he meant by "as it cedes too much control to the GUI", the response "Bob can speak for, and defend, himself" is really off the mark, and in itself rude. Which did annoy me.
That's since been cleared up as a miscommunication.
And I won't start on why you could possibly have felt the need to use this thread as an opportunity to share a story about Stockfish, Makruk, Senpai, whatever.
I would think this was quite clear, since I explained the reason. I'll repeat it for your convenience:
One reason I have seen people ask for a UCI port of an engine is that they assume that converting an engine to UCI would somehow make it stronger (the strongest engines are UCI engines, clearly there is a correlation there, and as we all know correlation equals causation). Of course there exist multi-protocol engines, but those are also generally not top engines, and you can't tell from a rating list
if there is any strength difference between the two protocols (of course there shouldn't be).
It so happens that I did the reverse experiment: convert a UCI engine to CECP, with the predictable result that it remains equally strong. Given that I already suggested that such a conversion is essentially pointless, it seemed reasonable to say
why I did that.
As it happens, the OP was not under this particular delusion, so that's where that piece of the conversation ended, until you saw the need to drag it up again. As an example, it still highlights a few pertinent points:
A "port" of an engine to another protocol is certainly doable, and depending on the engine, can be easy to do. It makes no difference in playing strength, it does not magically add new features and it does not fix bugs (but it may of course introduce new ones).
In short, as I just said, it is basically pointless
unless you have a specific reason in mind. In my case, it was a necessary first step in another experiment.
He simply does not like the hassle of having to configure adapters.
That is not something you can infer from the original post, which is what prompted me to ask why he wanted it.
Certainly something that I can infer from the original post. It's quite clearly "the point" of having an UCI version. What else could it be.
You tell me. I don't know, that's why I asked.
But since the word "adapter" never featured in the original post, so unless you're psychic or smart enough to know what someone means to write regardless of what they actually write, your inference is no more than a guess.
Either way, it doesn't matter: if you get the point and I don't, I still get to ask what it is. To basically say "I understand what is meant, so you shouldn't have to ask" really is exceedingly arrogant and presumptuous.
Perhaps this point bears repeating: when I ask a question, I do so because I'm curious about the answer. I don't do it to wind other people up, or to put people down. You may want to stop and consider why someone asks a question, rather than going by your own preconceived opinion.
He told you the solution (UCI port of Crafty), so no need to wonder what the problem might be.
Come on, you're smarter than that.
Really. He simply asked if someone could make an UCI version. Nothing difficult about it.
Did you just miss the point again?
If I were to say "get rid of Windows and just use Linux", what "problem" did I just solve? Doesn't matter, right, since I already told you the solution?
Of course not. There can be many good reasons for doing that, and there can be many dumb reasons for doing that, and if I were asking someone for help with a particular solution I have in mind,
I would hope that they would look at the problem and mention it if the solution I came up with doesn't seem like a good one. Why else would I ask someone else's opinion?
"UCI works better" is not an answer to the question, because it's not factually true. It may be subjectively true (or false!) but then it is useful to know why that is the case. Note that this isn't about anyone being "right" or "wrong", just about understanding a point of view.
Do you actually think the OP came here for a chess engine interface protocol war? He did not.
Of course not. So is there any particular reason you're derailing this thread by turning it into one?
You may take care to note (or not) that any discussion of the merits of CECP are in response to claimed advantages of UCI.
