Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: does chessbase care about wb engines

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 01:15:06 07/17/01

Go up one level in this thread


On July 17, 2001 at 04:02:44, CLiebert wrote:

>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.
>
>You´re joking?!
>
>Why do you think CB gave the native-code to three of the best wb-programmers
>(gromit, sos and goliath) before if they fear the competition?

It's called "slave labor"
1. I give you this specification.
2. You code to that specification.
3. The output will be useless to anyone except for us.
As a result of your work, other people will be able to use your engines with CB.

>For what reason should cb fear the competition of wb-engines?

It isn't easy to compete with "free" -- you have to have significant value
added.  I think that CB does add significant value, but it is hard to
communicate.  People see SSDF results and make purchase decisions based on that.
 People see WMCCC results and make purchase decisions based on that.  It's silly
-- they ought to look at useful features.  But it is obvious that they don't
really know what they want or need very well.

>What do think happens if a wb-engines reaches a tiger-or-fritz-level?

They already have.

>Do you think you will get it for free?
>Yes? ;-)

Crafty and Yace pretty well match that description.

>You get Crafty for free. As native. Another one of the strongest
>winboard-engines you get for free too. As native!
>A few days ago CB agreed to publish the GL 1.5 engine as fritz-native.
>
>You will know how it suits to these bigbrother-theories, I am sure
>(and won´t discuss this stuff anymore).

This is all very interesting, but you didn't bother to answer any of my
questions.

>>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
>>?
>
>Where is the point in practice if you compare GL and LG/Winboard or other
>engines I mentioned below wihout any difference after hundreds of games in
>practice?

If someone spends a great deal of energy working around the bugs in the
protocol, they can produce an engine which has value only to an owner of CB.

I remain completely unconvinced.



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.