Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 09:27:59 05/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2001 at 11:52:13, Robert Pawlak wrote: >There are three possibilities I think > >#1 Independent distribution. I don't think Stefan would be hurt by this >initially, since this is kind of a niche market anyway. But where he would miss >out is marketing, and this has long term implications. That's why I mentioned Gambit-Soft, which has been focusing their attention on the UCI protocol. That kind of coorperation lack the commercial strength of the established companies. OTOH Millennium hasn't been a model for marketing IMO. >#2 Rebel. Ed is certainly capable of marketing Shredder adequately. This seems >to me to be one of the two most likely scenarios. Agreed. >#3 Convekta. This is a big unknown. I have no idea what their resources are. I didn't think of that one. But you're right, it's a definite possibility. At least for the Shredder engine initially. >#4 Chessbase, with the likely scenario that I outlined previously. CB has no >compelling reason to continue UCI development. Although there is nothing to say >that Stefan might make arrangements to continue UCI support on his own. If it was my decision, I would do like Christophe Theron, ie. spreading my engine to as many GUIs as possible. Whether UCI survives or not is difficult to say. I guess Rudolf Huber has a say in this matter as well. >Agreed, I think though that the scenario outlined previously is most likely if >Chessbase gets Shredder. Agreed. >Maybe this was a factor in Stefan's decision not to participate in the >Braingames contest. Don't go there :-). One thing is certain though. There's entertainment in the computer chess world every week at the moment, encouraging wild speculations. 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.