I am firmly in the text-based camp. You ask/set the "engine" in text and
get answers back in text.
The transport layer can be anything, and you can have any number of them,
depending on system and needs.
But I would try to leave the absolute minimum "BG" handling outside the
"engine". The engine
>
> From: Guido Flohr
>> On 13 Nov 2023, at 21:22, Carsten Wenderdel wrote:
>>
>> In chess there is UCI, an interface understood by virtually all engines,
>> bots and GUIs. Wouldn’t it be great if we had something similar for
>> backgammon? Someone could write a new engine or GUI without
I've been thinking of a backgammon protocol the whole day now. Here are
some of my viewpoints.
As Guido says, both UCI and xboard are terrible, and I think they have some
weaknesses, yes. It is really hard to define a perfect protocol and it
cannot be perfect on the first attempt anyway. I think
