gtp January 2003

gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se

3 participants
2 discussions

GTP vs SGF
by A van Kessel 20 Jan '03

20 Jan '03

We have had this discussion before. The point is, IMHO that gunnar is very strict about adding features that are not obviously needed by even the most minimalistic implementation. The "standard" is extendable: feel free to implement th {AB,AW,MN,PL,C} sgf commands into your own GTP programs. Given unlimited undo, you could even remove the sgf-reader from the engine, and leave that to the GTP-driver. If you want to use gtp for controlling (otherwise hidden) state in your program, just create a private extension to the protocol for getting/setting the variables. One such command could be "SGF AB dd qq" AvK

1 0

Setup commands?
by Marco Scheurer 20 Jan '03

20 Jan '03

Hi, Shouldn't the GTP protocol include setup commands such as those found in SGF to add black or white stones to the board, clear points, AB, AW, AE (PL is probably redundant)? It would help to create a position and ask the engine to generate a move from there. Of course, this could be done with the loadsgf command but there are times when there is no sgf file. I would prefer to have these commands in GTP rather than writing a temp sgf file just for that purpose. Also, the current GTP spec on laodsgf is not explicit about this: are all setup nodes and properties allowed and taken into account when replaying the game record? Marco Scheurer Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland http://www.sente.ch

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

gtp January 2003