Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 10:39:03 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 12:52:35, Mogens Larsen wrote: >Hey Frank, > >The only free GUI AFAIK is WinBoard. Making sure that the commercial GUIs are >WinBoard compatible is the most important issue IMO. That means no crappy or >flawed adapters with the intended purpose of discouraging people from using (and >creating) WinBoard compatible engines. > >IMO the commercial software providers can create all the native protocols they >wish. Of course it's an advantage with a free protocol like UCI, so that >programmers can construct an engine for a (IMO) great GUI. But the GUI isn't >free (it rhymes but it still costs dimes :-). If SMK released a freeware UCI GUI >then it would be something else entirely. Then it would be a free alternative to >WinBoard. Not enough, it will be an alternative if there is a free GUI with source code available. Winboard is not "just" a free GUI, it is the facto standard today. To have a protocol that can compete there should be a free GUI with source available so the people could make suggestions, modify it, and make sure that everything is fair. Then, we'll talk. As far as things go now, all the efforts should be concentrated in improving Winboard II making the proper extensions (some are really needed!!!!). Here is the land where I'd like commercial programmers to work. Making a full compatible WB engine and extending the features rather than making a different protocol. After time, some of the extensions may become part of the "standard" if they prove to be good and there is a consensus. Even Tim Mann made prot II as an extension of prot I. At that time, I was finishing the first version of my program Gaviota in prot I. I was not left in the dark, I did not have to rewrite everything. I could now slowly add features until I make it fully WBII compatible. Who promise that UCI, CB of whatever GUI's will exist in 3 years? nobody can, but WB will certainly be available. The source code is there, anybody could go an port it to a different system and voila! If SB or UCI are out of business tomorrow, the lifetime of those GUI will be the lifetime of the programs sold already for systems that will be obsolete in 5 years. No source code available, no future guaranteed for a "standard GUI". Regards, Miguel > >In general I believe that an engine should be compatible to as many different >GUIs as possible. Either through a common protocol or through releasing multiple >versions. This reduces the costs for the average consumer. I prefer the first >option, mainly because the choice is obvious at the moment. An obvious common >protocol should be WinBoard. The latter option can cause confusion, but it's an >option as well. > >Regards, >Mogens
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.