From: Joan Pons i Semelis joan@host1.webarna.es
Illegal but sometimes practical. Of course you can always throw in a 'pass' for the missing move.
If a program receives what it considers an illegal/unfeasible move it will have to complain anyhow ... or crash!
Joan
Yes, I agree. The standard seems to be headed towards cleaning this up though and I think it's probably best. If you used the "feature" of moving out of order you would spoil the game record a program might keep, might as well just use setup!
Don
Don Dailey wrote:
... are part of the state. Apparently, the current player is not (I think it should be, which would simplify many commands, but that's a different matter). ...
Agreed, except the comment about current player. Not to include a current player is very intentional to avoid unnecessary limitations on the protocol.
/Gunnar
How would this limit the protocol? In my mind, if there was a 'genmove' and a 'move' command, the color would be an optional parameter (same with 'is_legal'). In most cases, you want to know the best move for the current player, but you always have the option to specify the player to move.
I'd even argue that it may be a greater burden to require programs to support consecutive moves of the same color, while every program must be able to handle alternating moves and keep track of whose turn it is to play. So assuming there's a 'setup' command, the core standard might not even require handling the optional color parameter.
Yes, the 'white' and 'black' commands seem to require moves that are actually "legal" in some sense, and yet is it permissable to send 2 white moves in a row? Isn't this illegal?
Anders Kierulf www.smartgo.com
_______________________________________________ gtp mailing list gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se http://lists.lysator.liu.se/mailman/listinfo/gtp