[computer-go] GTPv3

[Mark Boon]

On 2-mrt-07, at 16:34, Don Dailey wrote:

> Łukasz,
>
> Yes, I would like to see some of these problems solved.
>
> As I mentioned, UCI doesn't have any of these issues.
> After thinking about this,  there is perhaps a backwards
> compatible solution:
>
>  1. Don't change GTP,  just add to it.
>
>  2. Have a command called "asyncronous" which tells the engine
>     that it supports the new "asyncronous"  protocol.  (Or maybe
>     the response to the protocol_version command is enough)
>
>  3. If the engine suports this, then it can accept
>     commands like "stop_search" and it can send certain
>     informational commands.
>

I think this may be a viable solution. Better in my opinion than  
defining asynchronous commands.

Of course the current division betweem controller and engine make  
things easy. But it also inhibits some more sophisiticated behaviour.  
If the two parts can communicate what they do and don't support I  
think it's should be possible to allow for two-way communication.  
Whoever doesn't want to go through the trouble can still only support  
the simpe master-slave setup that it currently is.

Mark