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

[Steve A <ste...@gm...>]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Dale Hards <dal...@go...> wrote:
> 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?

Selecting the engine strength is a desirable feature, and it's why Phalanx was
originally adopted... but it's ELO ratings are hugely inaccurate.
Also - it has unresolved bugs in windows, and no maintainer, so that's
one reasom i'd like to nix phalanx.

Another is Scid's bloat. I really can't reconcile adding a *third*
player vs computer feature.
Of course we can keep the current "Fischer Chess/Random Pawns/etc" features of
Tactical Game in the new Xboard Game feature.

Currently, stockfish has a good "Skill Level" UCI Option.
Perhaps there exists an Xboard engine with a similar option... though
configuring Xboard Engines cannot (currently) be done through Scid's interface.

Another alernative is to keep Tacgame and SeriousGame as-is, and just properly
document how to use the Xboard/UCI adapter with the Serious Game feature -
but i have no experience with such adapters, and as a rule, native
implementations
are generally a better solution.

Having said all this , I quite enjoy playing Phalanx occasionally,
so i'd probably miss it too.

S.