[Standards-JIG] New version of chess game protocol

Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. darco at deepdarc.com
Wed Oct 25 00:58:21 UTC 2006


On Oct 24, 2006, at 5:45 PM, Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. wrote:

>
> On Oct 24, 2006, at 1:33 AM, Michal 'vorner' Vaner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 02:22:55PM -0700, Robert B Quattlebaum,  
>> Jr. wrote:
>> *) If you wanted a game with referee, how would you do it? You  
>> would add
>> referee to the room and he would just kick anyone who made an illegal
>> move? Or retract the moves somehow? Or you would need to specify
>> completely different protocol for the game with referee?
>
> You could have the referee be a bot that would complain when a move  
> was illegal. Kicking isn't a horrible idea, but perhaps it is a  
> bit...abrasive.

Actually, I think that the idea of having some entity designated as a  
"pass thru" in a MUC has value outside of the referee... allow me to  
explain:

the ideal case, you would send messages to the referee first and then  
the referee would validate the move and then send it to the  
conference room.

A different way to think about it would be for the case of a  
translation service. XEP-0171 defines a protocol for a 'translation  
service' entity. In the case of a MUC, it would be desirable if all  
messages that were sent to the muc were first sent to the translator  
before being rebroadcast out to the rest of the users in the MUC.  
This way, all of the translation is automatic.

If a MUC room had such a facility, then it could be easily used for  
the purpose of validating chess moves.

Random thought.

__________________
Robert Quattlebaum
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail:  darco at deepdarc.com
www:    http://www.deepdarc.com/





More information about the Standards mailing list