Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 15:13:41 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2001 at 17:20:11, Ulrich Tuerke wrote: >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 I won't grow and... I will expire with the hardware and OS, for instance it won't run on Pentium XII and Windows 2008. Winboard will not expire so easily, because somebody will port it since the source code is available. I know it does not sound relevant, but standards should guarantee a long life. Miguel
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.