Re: [Scidvspc-users] Feature request: Play vs WinBoard engines

[Dale H. <dal...@go...>]

Hi Steve, thanks for getting back to me. I'm not sure about removing the
tactical game idea. Not sure about Phalanx either.

As for new Xboard engines, my vote is something that you can configure the
strength of easily. Some of us (me) have no idea how to configure hash
tables, move plys and whatnot. We just want to make it 1200 ELO, and
correct me if I'm wrong, that is available in Phalanx?

Cheers for your reply
Dale



On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:38 AM, Steve A <ste...@gm...> wrote:

> Dale wrote
>
> > I have a feature request but I'm not entirely sure how feasible it will
> be.
> > Can we enable playing against WinBoard engines? I know WinBoard is a
> dated
> > protocol, but given the massive amount of WinBoard engines there are
> around
> > this could be a really useful function.
>
> Hmmm - I think it is time to have this feature.
>
> What i'll probably do is remove buggy Phalanx and the tactical game
> feature,
> and replace it with another xboard engine and a Play vs Xboard feature
> (possibly integrated with Play vs UCI)
> Should be able to do this for the next release (Scid vs PC-4.11) but
> it'll push it back a bit.
>
> Which Engine and which version should be included ?
> I'm guessing Crafty or Gnu chess, but suggestions are welcome.
> Crafty can be tough to build on Linux, and Gnu Chess has undergone lots
> of revisions which i dont know much about - so perhaps one version or
> another
> would be better to use. We *dont* necessarily need the strongest
> version/engine.
> Ease of build, integration with Scid, and code quality/integrity are
> much stronger prereqs.
> Some engines support the protocol better than others, so this is
> another consideration.
>
> Is someone interested in removing Phalanx and integrating a new Xboard
> engine
> into ScidvsPC's build process.
>
> Steve
>