Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:30:43 07/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2001 at 06:35:07, CLiebert wrote: >On July 16, 2001 at 02:26:53, ERIQ wrote: > >>maybe the problem w/ chessbase interface and wb engines is that, bigbrother does >>not care about them performing at their best. >> >>Why should they ?! wb engines are free, they don't make money from them but they >>compete strongly w/ fritz,nimzo, etc. their *bread and butter* products. >> >>So if wb-engines somehow get dumbed down alittle great. I guess that justifys >>the price of "pro" engines. >> >> sign, >> Eriq > > >First: Why do you think CB put efforts in developing the adapter? To make lots and lots of money, I would suppose. That's generally the purpose of writing code for commercial endeavors. Sometimes, they might do something just to be nice. Is that why CB wrote their adaptor? >Second: there are a lots of engines showing no difference in playing strenght. >If programmers a willing and able to optmize their engines for fritz they could >do this. Borgstädt did it for Goliath, Kai Skibbe for gromit, other examples are >Anmon, Faile or TCB. The Natives and wb-adapter-versions of these engines are >quite at the same level in pratice, did you try one of them? Let's see... 5/(100+) seems to be a rather small ratio. I am curious to know why the existing, well-debugged Winboard protocol was not adopted as-is. And even more interesting would be to know why CB protocol must send resets every so often. Is there some purpose to this? This defect has been known for many years. Finally it was fixed recently and then immediately re-broken. Seems a bit odd on the surface. >But if you like to hold on you big brother theories, feel free ... I don't know if it is sinister or not, but I am _personally_ convinced that the defects in the CB version of the Winboard adapter are purposeful, just as the defects in the RS232 adapter were also purposeful. I am not sure if I can actually blame a company for trying to make their products look good at the expense of competitors, especially if the competition is free. It is well known (and incredibly obvious) that sending a reset command during play will not make for optimium performance. Can anyone provide a logical explanation as to why this command is still sent by these tools? Has there been insufficient time to remove this clear and obvious defect ?
This page took 0.01 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.