Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 11:15:26 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 13:39:03, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >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. Well, I agree on the importance of freely available source code when the issue is an exact alternative. That wasn't my point however. Nor do I mean alternative in the sense of a GUI competition. The point was to emphasize that UCI isn't free from the viewpoint of the user and that a free GUI would be necessary to warrent that description. Problems with development and lastability is another issue, but naturally important. OTOH I don't see a lot of WinBoard development from other people than Tim Mann. Would WinBoard continue to develop if/when he decides to stop? Aren't most authors just exploiting the fact that they don't have to design their own GUI and don't care too much about developing/improving WinBoard capabilities? The second WinBoard protocol was released soon after the UCI protocol. Was that a mere coincidence or did it work as a catalyst for an otherwise postponed/delayed revision of the WinBoard protocol? 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.