On 2-mrt-07, at 16:34, Don Dailey wrote:
Łukasz,
Yes, I would like to see some of these problems solved.
As I mentioned, UCI doesn't have any of these issues.
After thinking about this, there is perhaps a backwards
compatible solution:
1. Don't change GTP, just add to it.
2. Have a command called "asyncronous" which tells the engine
that it supports the new "asyncronous" protocol. (Or maybe
the response to the protocol_version command is enough)
3. If the engine suports this, then it can accept
commands like "stop_search" and it can send certain
informational commands.
I think this may be a viable solution. Better in my opinion than
defining asynchronous commands.
Of course the current division betweem controller and engine make
things easy. But it also inhibits some more sophisiticated behaviour.
If the two parts can communicate what they do and don't support I
think it's should be possible to allow for two-way communication.
Whoever doesn't want to go through the trouble can still only support
the simpe master-slave setup that it currently is.
Mark
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
