Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:11:05 04/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2002 at 10:21:32, Günther Simon wrote: >Nice theory which should not fit to experienced WB users though. >I admit that I hadnt used Arena for a while because I am quite >happy with WB. I tend to believe that coping with WinBoard succesfully developes increased stubborness when facing various installation and configuration problems. In that sense, Arena isn't difficult to master for an experienced WB user. It's the "Arena is much easier to use for a newbie" conjecture that I have my doubts about. >IMHO one of the biggest advantages is the output like time usage >and search depth directly into the pgn if it would not have it >we never had detected why Sjeng was slaughtered by Yace in this match ;) Quite. A significant advantage to browsing debug files for errors (if they even exist). I also use it for opening book testing. When it is out of book and what happens with the eval. The other advantage is using UCI (only) engines in their natural habitat. But I prefer WinBoard for "serious" games. Mainly because I'm certain that the engine configurations are debugged under WinBoard. Installing and checking everything under Arena would take too long. >Nevertheless I will give it a try again when the book features >are implemented in it because then I am able to use UCI only ones >and TheKing running _with_ books which is not possible under WB. >I suppose you will start again with book building business then, >creating Mogens Arena books :-) There would be a significant risk of that I'm afraid :-). Of course I would have to find a way to sabotage the work of Carlos Pesce as well ;-). Book development is still in progress privately. Not enough feedback to warrent making them public. Regards, 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.