Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 16:17:35 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 18:44:15, Roy Eassa wrote: >On May 26, 2002 at 18:29:53, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >>On May 26, 2002 at 18:25:47, F. Huber wrote: >> >>>sei vielleicht ´etwas´ vorsichtiger mit Deinen Formulierungen in >>>einer Fremdsprache - da kommt manches eventuell nicht genauso an, >>>wie man es eigentlich gemeint hat, und wirkt dann möglicherweise >>>unfreundlich. >>>Und unfreundlich wollen wir doch zu unseren Schach-Kollegen - >>>vor allem zu jenen über dem großen Teich - nicht sein, oder? :-) >>> >>>Grüße, >>>Franz. >> >>Hi Franz, >> >>Franz wrote that my message is maybe not very friendly. >>Sorry Franz, in this forum in English main language! >> >>Hey, now I can make a little translation ... >>and this in my fantastic English :-) >> >>Best >>Frank > > >Frank, > >I want to make sure that you know that I have always had positive thoughts about >UCI, Martin, and you. Sometimes other people have posted negative things about >UCI or the need for Arena, but I have not agreed with them (subject to my >limitated understanding of the API issues in UCI versus in WinBoard). Although >I don't dislike Winboard, I have felt from the beginning that Arena is a very >worthwhile project and is likely to result in a program that I would prefer to >use over WinBoard. I thank Martin and you (and everybody involved) for doing >this great work for free! > >I can see how the wording of my original question was not great and might lead >to offense. I am sorry for that -- there was certainly no offense intended! > >Before posting that question, I actually did briefly visit the FCP forum and did >a quick scan for information about Arena's recent progress. I didn't see any >relevant posts regarding that and I considered the possibility that Martin had >become busy on something else and perhaps had put Arena on hold for awhile. I >am glad it is *not* on hold, and I I look forward to the next version! > >Best regards, > > -Roy. Hi Roy, my opinion about engine protocols is not important but I am thinking that both protocols are not 100% perfect. WinBoard works fine but one problem is to adjust important time controls. Under UCI I can see more status information but the GUI must give the engine commants and not the engine the GUI. Much programmers are thinking that this is not the right way! I have more fun on WinBoard because it's work perfectly for me but I try also to make for UCI publicity after the first hour from UCI. For me is UCI the second engine protocol and WinBoard the first and main engine protocol. Both protocols are free and user have fun on WinBoard and UCI. In my opinion a reason why ChessBase GUIs, supported UCI (bad support for WinBoard here). Chess-Assistant and Chess Partner support for WinBoard is clear better. You can see under Arena that Martin make here (in my opinion) a better support for WinBoard as all other commercial firms. It's easy to added a WinBoard engine under Arena or to make under Arena configurations for WinBoard engines. I am sure that more and more engine lovers find Arena and have fun for the rest of his live :-) Normaly it's for Arena great if user discuss in different fora because other user read the messages try Arena and have fun. CCC is a a very important chess forum. Messages here are welcome :-) But the problem is that we cann't see every questions about Arena in all chess fora. In Arena beta test time it's for us better to collect Arena messages, bug reports and questions in Arena support forum. After release version 1.0 I will write in 1.000 other fora (chess or not chess) that Arena is now available :-)) Best Frank
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.