Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 15:23:56 07/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2001 at 17:30:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >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 >? It will be most interesting to read CLiebert's answers to your questions! Silence would IMO not be probable, since *that* response would really be way too unveiling...Why not "Yes, I guess you're correct in your criticism. We must have a look at this and within 3 months I can assure you of something way better." Sune
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.