[Standards-JIG] New version of chess game protocol
Lukáš 'Spike' Polívka
lukas.polivka at gmail.com
Wed Oct 25 03:30:56 UTC 2006
On 10/24/06, Michal 'vorner' Vaner <michal.vaner at kdemail.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 03:31:25PM -0600, Jack Moffitt wrote:
> > I will respond to some of the other mails in this thread as soon as I
> > can, but I figured I should jump in now. (I've refrained from
> > participating before since I was already working on a gaming protocol
> > for commercial use: http://www.chesspark.com).
> > >Chess and checkers do not need referees, and thus I think
> > >requiring those games to use a game server for no other reason than
> > >to have them under the same roof is a serious flaw, IMHO.
> > For starters, Chess and checkers both need referrees. How else would
> > you know a move is valid? Am I supposed to trust you? What happens
> > when you refuse to accept my move because you will lose? What about
> > playing variants where the rules are new and you may not know them
> > well enough to spot infractions? Does the client check? If so, what
> > happens if there is a bug and it refuses legal moves?
> If there is a bug, then it should be fixed and not presented to the
> public. If a client makes such things, people should know about it and
> not use such client.
> What if the server rule checker has a bug? Is there any difference?
I completely agree with Jack Moffitt.
The difference is that when the server-side rules are flawed, it's
enough to fix it only once and it can take effect IMMEDIATELY. With
client-side rules, different clients & versions will come with their
With client-side rules, you have to check both incoming and outbound moves.
With server-side rules, only the server component needs to check
validity of incoming moves. This seems much simpler too me. Clients
SHOULD assume that incoming moves are valid.
IM (XMPP/Jabber/Google Talk): spike411 at jabber.cz
ICQ, AIM, MSN: Never ever!
More information about the Standards