Winboard Forum

by **David Dahlem** » 02 Jul 2004, 16:56

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: David Dahlem at 02 July 2004 17:56:36:

On the Gothmog homepage at ...
http://www.math.uio.no/~romstad/gothmog/gothmog.html
I notice this sentence ...
"A general piece of advice to Windows users is that it is best to run Gothmog in UCI mode, if your GUI supports that."
I'm using Arena. What are the advantages of running Gothmog in UCI mode vs WB mode? I generally prefer WB mode whenever possible, as i prefer changing settings in config files rather than in the GUI. But if it's a strength issue, that's a different story. :-)

Thanks
Dave

by **F.Huber** » 02 Jul 2004, 17:27

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: F.Huber at 02. July 2004 18:27:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Gothmog ... UCI or WB ? geschrieben von:/posted by: David Dahlem at 02 July 2004 17:56:36:

Hi Dave,

I generally prefer WB mode whenever possible, as i prefer changing settings in config files rather than in the GUI.

WHAT?? Do you mean that seriously?
If I would have known this, I would have rather made a
ChestWB and PopeyeWB instead of UCI versions ... ;-)

Best wishes,
Franz.

by **David Dahlem** » 03 Jul 2004, 13:37

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: David Dahlem at 03 July 2004 14:37:37:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Gothmog ... UCI or WB ? geschrieben von:/posted by: F.Huber at 02. July 2004 18:27:

Hi Dave,
I generally prefer WB mode whenever possible, as i prefer changing settings in config files rather than in the GUI.
WHAT?? Do you mean that seriously?
If I would have known this, I would have rather made a
ChestWB and PopeyeWB instead of UCI versions ...
Best wishes,
Franz.

Yes, i do mean it. :-)

I've occassionally had settings change, from my custom settings back to the default settings in UCI mode. So i just have more confidence when settings are in a config file. :-)

Regards
Dave

by **Tord Romstad** » 03 Jul 2004, 15:44

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Tord Romstad at 03 July 2004 16:44:35:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Gothmog ... UCI or WB ? geschrieben von:/posted by: David Dahlem at 02 July 2004 17:56:36:

On the Gothmog homepage at ...
http://www.math.uio.no/~romstad/gothmog/gothmog.html
I notice this sentence ...
"A general piece of advice to Windows users is that it is best to run Gothmog in UCI mode, if your GUI supports that."
I'm using Arena. What are the advantages of running Gothmog in UCI mode vs WB mode? I generally prefer WB mode whenever possible, as i prefer changing settings in config files rather than in the GUI. But if it's a strength issue, that's a different story.

I never thought anybody would prefer config files rather than the GUI. My main reasons
for recommending UCI over WB were that configuration is more comfortable in UCI
mode (at least for the majority of users), and because the search information is much
more detailed in UCI mode.
The playing strength *should* be exactly the same in both cases. However, some people
claim that Gothmog plays much better in UCI mode when running under Arena. I don't
know what the reason is. One possibility is that it is caused by Gothmog's very high PV
update frequency. The xboard protocol does not specify the format of the PV, it is
just a plain text string (and this, by the way, is in my opinion one of the major design
flaws of the protocol). Arena tries to parse the PV and print it in a uniform way. Perhaps
this consumes too many processor cycles. Admittedly this explanation doesn't seem very
likely, but I cannot think of anything else.
If you have some processor time to burn, it would be nice if you could run a few matches
with Gothmog in both modes (UCI and xboard) in Arena and compare the results. I cannot
do such tests myself, because I don't have any Windows computers. If you have no time
for experimentation, I'm afraid I will have to recommend using UCI mode in Arena.
Tord

by **David Dahlem** » 03 Jul 2004, 16:26

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: David Dahlem at 03 July 2004 17:26:10:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Gothmog ... UCI or WB ? geschrieben von:/posted by: Tord Romstad at 03 July 2004 16:44:35:

On the Gothmog homepage at ...
http://www.math.uio.no/~romstad/gothmog/gothmog.html
I notice this sentence ...
"A general piece of advice to Windows users is that it is best to run Gothmog in UCI mode, if your GUI supports that."
I'm using Arena. What are the advantages of running Gothmog in UCI mode vs WB mode? I generally prefer WB mode whenever possible, as i prefer changing settings in config files rather than in the GUI. But if it's a strength issue, that's a different story.
I never thought anybody would prefer config files rather than the GUI. My main reasons
for recommending UCI over WB were that configuration is more comfortable in UCI
mode (at least for the majority of users), and because the search information is much
more detailed in UCI mode.
The playing strength *should* be exactly the same in both cases. However, some people
claim that Gothmog plays much better in UCI mode when running under Arena. I don't
know what the reason is. One possibility is that it is caused by Gothmog's very high PV
update frequency. The xboard protocol does not specify the format of the PV, it is
just a plain text string (and this, by the way, is in my opinion one of the major design
flaws of the protocol). Arena tries to parse the PV and print it in a uniform way. Perhaps
this consumes too many processor cycles. Admittedly this explanation doesn't seem very
likely, but I cannot think of anything else.
If you have some processor time to burn, it would be nice if you could run a few matches
with Gothmog in both modes (UCI and xboard) in Arena and compare the results. I cannot
do such tests myself, because I don't have any Windows computers. If you have no time
for experimentation, I'm afraid I will have to recommend using UCI mode in Arena.
Tord

Thanks Tord, for the detailed explanation. If i had some extra time, i would test the strength of Gothmog UCI vs Gothmog WB, but i just don't have that time. It would take a lot of games, and time, to "prove" if there is a difference. And there is always that ugly term, "error margin". :-)

So i'll have to assume the strength is the same, and continue to run it in WB mode. :-)

Dave

by **Dieter Bürßner** » 04 Jul 2004, 13:06

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Dieter Bürßner at 04 July 2004 14:06:14:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Gothmog ... UCI or WB ? geschrieben von:/posted by: Tord Romstad at 03 July 2004 16:44:35:

I never thought anybody would prefer config files rather than the GUI.

Aren't there people, who prefer makefiles to typical IDE project files? Perhaps you even belong to those? :-)

In the Makefile, you see at one glance all the compiler options used, etc. In a typical IDE environment, you might have to carefully look over several dialogs, to check, if all the options are like you intended (perhaps you tried temporarily some other settings, and forgot to reset them). With engine ini files vs. GUI setup the situation is similar.
Regards,
Dieter

by **Tord Romstad** » 04 Jul 2004, 14:59

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Tord Romstad at 04 July 2004 15:59:50:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Gothmog ... UCI or WB ? geschrieben von:/posted by: Dieter Bürßner at 04 July 2004 14:06:14:

I never thought anybody would prefer config files rather than the GUI.
Aren't there people, who prefer makefiles to typical IDE project files? Perhaps you even belong to those?
In the Makefile, you see at one glance all the compiler options used, etc. In a typical IDE environment, you might have to carefully look over several dialogs, to check, if all the options are like you intended (perhaps you tried temporarily some other settings, and forgot to reset them). With engine ini files vs. GUI setup the situation is similar.

Yes, I do, at least for static languages like C. :-)

Not quite, IMHO. In a well-designed GUI, the engine configuration shouldn't be
spread over several dialogs. All settings should be available from a single
dialog. I don't have any UCI-compatible GUIs myself, and therefore I am not
sure they behave like this, but I suppose most of them do.
Engine init files are different from makefiles because they have no standard
syntax. Every engine has its own kind of init file. When you install a new
engine, you don't know where to look or even what to look for in the init file.
A uniform way to do inspect and modify configuration data from the GUI seems
preferable to me.
Tord

by **Dieter Bürßner** » 04 Jul 2004, 22:49

Geschrieben von:/Posted by: Dieter Bürßner at 04 July 2004 23:49:56:
Als Antwort auf:/In reply to: Re: Gothmog ... UCI or WB ? geschrieben von:/posted by: Tord Romstad at 04 July 2004 15:59:50:

In the Makefile, you see at one glance all the compiler options used, etc. In a typical IDE environment, you might have to carefully look over several dialogs, to check, if all the options are like you intended (perhaps you tried temporarily some other settings, and forgot to reset them). With engine ini files vs. GUI setup the situation is similar.
Not quite, IMHO. In a well-designed GUI, the engine configuration shouldn't be
spread over several dialogs. All settings should be available from a single
dialog. I don't have any UCI-compatible GUIs myself, and therefore I am not
sure they behave like this, but I suppose most of them do.
Engine init files are different from makefiles because they have no standard
syntax. Every engine has its own kind of init file. When you install a new
engine, you don't know where to look or even what to look for in the init file.
A uniform way to do inspect and modify configuration data from the GUI seems
preferable to me.

Tord, I basically agree with you on all points. Still some comments. The GUIs I know do have most settings in one dialog, but not all. Typical exceptions are NalimovPath/Cache, hash size and Ownbook. The latter may be better in another book options dialog (where the GUI handles its own book settings, so that all book options are at one place). The former two typically may belong to all installed engines, and are therefor at another place.
Sure. But for the expert of one single engine, the ini file might be easier. For my engine, I have about 10 numerical settings. I possibly have to read over all of those carefully, to see, which are default and which not (mayby a sueful GUI feature could be to show defaults in another way than changed entries). In the ini file, I typically only see the few lines of the really changed entries. So less careful reading is needed.
BTW. You can download at least one UCI-GUI for Unix and Mac: Jose by Peter Schäfer.
Sure, and for most people. But the other method may have some advantages for a very limited number of people, too.
Regards,
Dieter

Winboard Forum

Who is online