Author: Ulrich Tuerke
Date: 14:20:11 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 14:02:28, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On May 16, 2001 at 13:39:03, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>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 > >Hi Miguel, > >you have right this is the main problem. > >We get the MCS System one year later MCS is out and we get UCI. The UCI protocol >is free but not the GUI. It is a commercial GUI from a very young programmer and >I hope the GUI is a long time available. But what is if the programmer (Stefan >Meyer-Kahlen) say in 3 years ... ! > >I have enough from chess and now I will every day see "Biene Maja" in the >television. > >We all have a problem if all programs are compatible to UCI. What's the problem ? The guys who have got the Shredder-5 GUI will be able to use it even when Stephan is going to watch TV. It won't expire. The other who don't own it (like me) won't care anyway. Uli > >This is good on the free WinBoard / Source and free protocol by Tim Mann. > >Other example: >Chess-Base make complete changes in the GUI and a new engine protocol. And now ? >People buy a lot of Chess-Base Software and must buy the new software ? Look for >an example 16Bit engines and 32Bit engines. > >We have not a chance to get a perfect protocol or a perfect GUI. >I think the GUIs from Chess-Base and also the GUI from Stefan are top for a lot >of engines. So I hope Stefan add more options in his GUI for all the user which >have interest. If we have a perfect GUI, we need no updates, also in 5 years ... >think so ! > >Best >Frank
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.