Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 02:58:31 03/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 12, 2005 at 07:32:17, Frank Phillips wrote: >On March 12, 2005 at 07:21:31, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On March 11, 2005 at 15:51:50, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On March 11, 2005 at 05:32:07, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>>On March 10, 2005 at 16:36:30, Frank Phillips wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 10, 2005 at 09:24:14, Andrew Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 10, 2005 at 08:29:02, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On March 09, 2005 at 12:13:26, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>After the post on how Daniel Mehrmann is still working on XBoard/Winboard, I >>>>>>>>immediately starting thinking of ways to waste his time. My question is: Does >>>>>>>>Winboard really have any advantages over UCI any more? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The Anthony WB/UCI comparison: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>+UCI: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Interface is cleaner & easier to implement, not being based on the crappy GNU >>>>>>>>chess protocol. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Supports Multiple PVs, refutations, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Graphical configuration of engines. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>+WinBoard: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Can operate in text mode. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And this comparison is (obviously) quite favorable to UCI, although I may have >>>>>>>>missed things. Anyway, I'd be willing to help Daniel out over the next few >>>>>>>>weeks if it meant a new version of Xboard with UCI support, and I'm guessing >>>>>>>>there would be a few other people willing to help out as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>anthony >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The current situation is quite ok - every author implements the protocol he >>>>>>>prefers, and adapters exist to make sure that every engine runs in every GUI. >>>>>>>(Except Fritz & Junior -- gggrrrr :)). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Personally, I'm quite sure that UCI support requires less code and less of a >>>>>>>mess in your engine - but it's really a minor issue. It was quite easy for me to >>>>>>>decide for UCI. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As for GUIs - if you haven't already done so, I'd suggest you at least try the >>>>>>>professional GUIs. I doubt it's worth it to try to get winboard caught up .. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Vas >>>>>> >>>>>>Lots of people develop on Linux. I'm not going to suddenly start using Windows >>>>>>to do chess programming when I use Linux for everything else. >>>>>> >>>>>>Andrew >>>>> >>>>>I would like to second that. >>>>> >>>>>It is depressing if the suggestion is that all (hobby) chess programmers should >>>>>have to agree to the MS licence and fund their 'business' tactics - or write >>>>>their own GUI. >>>>> >>>>>Frank >>>> >>>>Yes, this is a good point. I worked in Unix until 2003 and can sympathize with >>>>this. >>>> >>>>You shouldn't kid yourselves though - and probably you don't - in many cases you >>>>pay a price when you cannot use Windows apps. Maybe it's not right but it's just >>>>the reality. >>>> >>>>Vas >>> >>> >>>It is small compared to the price of using MS Windows; and infinitely small >>>compared to the price of having no choice. >>> >>>Frank >> >>Software is by nature pretty cheap, compared to the time you spend working & >>playing with it. > >The cost of MS and other software to replace GNU/Linux software on my machine >would be far greater than the cost of the machine. I used to have four machines >in a network. For each I would need a unique copy of MS this and that. Good >for MS, bad for me. Probably you were spending quite a bit of time there, so you could still see it as a "small" amount. I know what you mean though - for example, Visual Studio costs 900 Euro. I think you just have to think of it as a psychological effect - you'll spend hundreds of hours with it, but pay just once. > >> >>I don't like the idea that the lack of competition will let M$$ do what they >>want - but I think it's enough that everyone optimize their own decisions, and >>the market will take care of itself. >> >>Vas > >If there was a free market, perhaps. But companies like MS control the market >to avoid competiton. They long ago ceased to survive by competing on the >products they sell. It's part true. Yes, in the short term, M$$ could push an inferior product to the market. For example, if you develop for .NET, your database pretty much needs to be SQL server - it's a huge competitive advantage for their database team. In the long run, though, they will continue to need to present a technically competitive package. If they start slipping, companies will start defecting. It's not 100% free-market - but it's fairly close. Vas > >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.