Author: Peter Berger
Date: 13:45:45 09/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2002 at 13:06:16, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On September 24, 2002 at 12:35:18, Peter Berger wrote: > >Hi, > >>Maybe it should be mentioned that this list includes the current worldchampion >>and the number 1 and 2 of the Swedish SSDF list. >> >>Quantity isn't everything, there is also quality to think about. > >Not for me! >For me is every work on an engine the same work. >Knightx or Shredder ... no different for me! There _are_ differences. Let's take Tamerlane and Fritz. I agree with your respect for the programmer of Tamerlane but it doesn't make sense to claim that they represent the same kind of quality IMHO. >>What can an average user do with 160 chess engines? I don't think the number of >>engines itself is very important at all. > >On the number of engines you can see that in this example 95% of programmers >added standards in his engines. 5% of the programmers "The specially sausage >Fighter"! The WinBoard standard's main purpose from the programmer view is that you can hook your engine to a useable GUI with reasonable effort without writing your own IMHO. If there would be little need to use all engines for users, then there were also little need to use them all in the same GUI .. >>The ChessBase GUI is very good and offers a lot of useful options - the same is >>true about the ChessPartner interface, to name two examples . Both also support >>UCI engines directly and CP also allows to use WinBoard engines without >>problems. > >To 50% right! >The other 50% ... >I will explain: >You can used in ChessBase GUI and ChessPartner GUI free available engines. But >you can not used the engines from ChessBase and ChessPartner in free or other >available GUIs. So the firms used freeware but give not the chance to used the >own engines in other GUIs. But why would anyone want to do that? If you bought a commercial full-featured GUI where you can use all your beloved engines - why would you want to use them is another inferior GUI ? I agree to the exception of the ChessBase GUIs when it is about their miserable WinBoard support. But if you owned say Shredder and wanted to use UCI engines and you are no part of another development team - do you really think you would be much interested to run them in say Arena? > >That is Main Theme: No standards! > >>I am interested in the development of amateur engines and spend much time with >>them. > >You are welcome :-) > >>But from reading your posts I came to the conclusion you started some kind of >>crusade here. > >I wrote about facts: >165 engins and 160 engines are compatible to UCI / WB (to standards) and only a >hand full are "specially sausage Fighter". > >So I asked a normaly (for this time normaly) question: >Is ChessTiger compatible to standards or not? > >Look, the Chess Partner programmer have fun on Ruffian and played games againt >Chess Tiger. Could the Ruffian programmer also played with Chess Tiger on the >GUI where he have interest? Sure, if he bought Chess Tiger he could play matches against Ruffian just fine. > >It's really easy to understand what I write here! I'm not dumb, I simply disagree. > >>Another aspect: it is nice to get strong engines for free but for me it is also >>OK to pay some money for a high quality product. > >Hight quality product? >Now I understand you! > >For me are all chess engines hight qualtiy products and so you understand not my >messags. In this case you have right! ROTFL, it's definitely strange to be accused of being against amateur engines :) Maybe I should try to explain it in a different way. Yesterday I read all the cool messages about Ruffian and that it is availlable for download which I did right away. I was eager to use it as sparring partner for an UCI engine that needed some challenge. First I tried to set it up using the autoplayer by Rémi Coloun as a WinBoard engine that is quite a reliable tool usually. Ruffian didn't ponder correctly and there were decent problem with its time management. Studying the logfiles I came to the conclusion that there is a problem with Ruffian in this setup. So I decided to set it up as an UCI engine in Shredder instead. The game started just fine but after book was left the engine just went on and on thinking until it lost on time and never moved. This is no problem at all. I thought: "well, as I am currently not into beta-testing Ruffian I'll wait just a little" and continued to read and enjoy all the great results on the message boards. This afternoon I bought an upgrade to ChessTiger 15 that I have not yet installed. If anything like the above happened I'd be furious as I payed good money for it so I expect high quality and reliability. Also I wouldn't want to have to download additional tools for an autoplayer setup in the first play - I expect that everyhing is well tested and just fine and comfortable. Also the engine is expected to be nearly flawless of course. Cause I am an ordinary user here. I want to play chess with the product - I want that the programmers thought for me and made everything just perfect and comfortable. And I want the CP GUI to work fine and do just what it says in the manual. It's different worlds, Frank - and I tend to like both of them. Peter
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.