Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 10:31:49 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 11:57:10, José Carlos wrote:
>On May 16, 2001 at 06:53:29, Frank Quisinsky wrote:
>
>>Hi there,
>>
>>the first engine concept is WinBoard with now I think over 130 compatible
>>engines (available, not available).
>>
>>After WinBoard we have the strong commercial Chess-Base concept with a lot of
>>top engines.
>>
>>And we have UCI by Stefan Meyer Kahlen, at the moment 8 programs are available,
>>more comming soon (Engine Edition, in this case ... third CD of Gambit-Soft ...
>>a better name as WinBoard Edition). I think in 1 year we have 30-50 UCI engines
>>because UCI is very interesting and free.
>
> Don't mix things. UCI is a _free protocol_ but there's no _free GUI_. You have
>to pay for it. It's a very important difference with Winboard.
Yes, I think in this case also important (see my answeres of the other
messages).
>>I cannt see other ideas with engine concepts.
>>And I think 2 strong commercial concepts are enough.
> As with the "news-ticker issue", you're all the time trying to have a little
>number of anything. Two protocols ('protocols', Frank, not 'concepts') are
>enough? So if I want to write my own protocol for my engine, I can't? Just
>because you say so?
Yes, please make this !
But I think important are also the user.
I have no interest on more as 2 good commercial protocols (OK, it is better then
concepts :-) ) ant the important free protocol WinBoard !
> Be serious, Frank. Diversity is good. Diverstity of "news-tickers" means
>different points of view for the same new. Diversity of protocols means that
>people can join the one the like best.
> Ok, it's good to have adapters between protocols. But adapters that work just
>fine, not like chessbase's joke.
> Don't limit diversity, please. Let anyone chose what they prefer. If most
>people like a certain protocol (I think this is the case of winboard, which I
>like best too), the other ones would die or get better or get compatible or
>whatever.
Hm, I understand this but we have different GUIs in the past. Now people have
more fun on standards (protocol standards).
Pax Chess, Chenard (very old free amateur programs) are not compatible to
WinBoard. I read more message about Averno compare to Pax Chess and Chenard.
>
>>I think it is good if we have a little bit contra against Chess-Base. Good for
>>the market and the next years. Also if Chess-Base have a little bit contra we
>>have the possibilty to get more programs ... more engines ... and have more fun
>>with computer chess.
>
> Personally I don't like chessbase, but I don't consider 'fair play' to ask
>anyone to act against them. It's just my choice not to make my engine chessbase
>compatible, but the other programers can do what the want. Not my problem.
Also an important point !!
>>This is my private opinion but I have also the idea that all programs compatible
>>to all GUIs. The best way for user.
>
> Indeed. I totally agree here. Compatibility is good for the user, no doubt.
Yes !!
>>Now, what is right ?
>>A important questions for the future.
>>
>>Have all programmers interest to make a Engine for Chess-Base ?
>
> Not in my case.
:-)
A lot of programmers have this opinion, the most professionals have an other
opinion (must have an other opinion, or the professionals are amateurs) :-))
>>Have programmers interest to make a Engine for the free WinBoard concept ?
>
> Personally, I support winboard as it's free and very good IMO.
Good, you know ... I like that :-)
>>Have programmers interest to see a little bit commercial contra ?
> For me, as an amateur in this field, I don't have enemies here, commercial or
>not commercial. So no 'contra' from me.
And this is the main questions for me.
I work hard for chess in my free time.
Other questions:
I have interest that also the programmers get a little bit for his work if the
programmers have interest. Furthermore, it is good when a strong amateur program
is on a commercial CD (for the Fritz and Genius Player :-)) ).
So the question is important for me:
We must have a good GUI for the market, WinBoard or UCI (must be free). WinBoard
is for me perfect but not for the market. For the market is Shredder perfect, so
I think this point is important.
>>Have programmers interest to make a engine for a good GUI for users ?
>
> Winboard is a good GUI, isn't it?
>
>>Have programmers interest to make in the next years only free versions, no
>>market or a market from one firm ?
>
> Think a bit about it. If you can give somenthing for free or earn some money
>from it, what will you do? The fact is that most amateurs don't have time to
>make a good enough product to be sold. So it's not a choice for _most_ (I know
>there's Bob, and someone else). If I could get money from _all my programs_, I'd
>do. But I work for 12 to 13 hours a day in my company. That's where I get the
>money from, actually.
I understand. I work also 10 hours a day (not for chess). A little bit on money
for buying a new PC is good enough :-))
If I have see the possibiliy to make a CD with UCI engines and strong programs
Gambit-Soft have interest, I have interest and I think this is good for the
market.
So the amateurs must have time to make a engine which is very good compatible to
a commercial GUI. The playing strength is not this what for me is very
interesting. I like all programs.
>>What have we all to do ?
>>
>>We must make 5 new engine concepts for make a little bit commercial contra ?
>>We must work all hand in hand ...
>
> I really don't understand what you mean here.
More and more engine protocols are available. Firms try to make here a little
bit profit. I think this is not the right way. The right way is to work hand in
hand and make the programs compatible.
>>And I mean we must work hand in hand with "Chess-Base ... the best ideas, the
>>best products, the best software" and must work hand in hand with a second idea.
>
> I really don't understand what you mean here.
I mean that if we have only Chess-Base with a not free protocol is this not very
interesting for the market. And the market is important for computer chess.
>>So I have interest to powerd UCI because the GUI from Stefan is very good.
>
> Again, don't forget there does not exist a free GUI that supports UCI. UCI
>free engines are useless for me, as I don't want to buy Shredder. Winboard _is
>free_ (protocol and GUI).
Try UCI, I think we can send the GUI if you have interest to make an UCI Engine.
>>Best
>>Frank
>
> José C.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.