Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 10:09:27 07/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2001 at 06:35:07, CLiebert wrote: >First: Why do you think CB put efforts in developing the adapter? Because users kept asking for it? Because other interfaces have this feature and they could not lag behind? >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? I have seen lists where Faile CB was way ahead of Faile WB, but I do not know how reliable they are. I know the adapter seriously affects some aspects of the engines, like pondering, time allocation and reuse between searches. What effect this has on strength I do not know, as it will vary between engines. >But if you like to hold on you big brother theories, feel free ... From comments here I gather that the native engines also reset everything after each move and that the deficiencies in the adapter are a reflection of this. So I do not believe the first release of the adapter was intentionally crippled. I do believe there is little incentive for ChessBase to fix it, and I do not believe they are a honest company either. I do believe some of their products are very good (and very costly). I find your statement that the engine authors (100+) should adapt to ChessBase (1) rather than the reverse rather redicolous. -- GCP
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.