Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 14:20:44 09/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 24, 2002 at 16:45:45, Peter Berger wrote: >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. Sorry Peter, no different for me. MFChess or Fritz, engine is engine! I will not speak from Quality, only from playing strength and playing style. All engines have a high quality for me. >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. Different views but in fact we have a nice standard. >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. I hope I understand you. The question is more that users of chess programs have different favorits GUI. So I believe that all groups of users must added every engine. >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? Please speak not from Arena. I know Martin Blume since end of the year 2001. I wrote the same now 4 years. This have not to do with Arena, not very nice what you write Peter. Inferior GUI? What is a inferior GUI, please give me an example? >Sure, if he bought Chess Tiger he could play matches against Ruffian just fine. Yes, possible! And can I also play with Chess Tiger under WinBoard? Tiger is only compatible to itself, in the case from ChessTiger also to ChessBase and Chess-Assitant. Do you mean that a Winboarder which have interest on Chess Tiger buy now this software :-) >I'm not dumb, I simply disagree. Please, no problem for me! >>>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 The Chess Partner GUI is not perfect. Try hash settings with UCI engines. Problems with load and unload engines. Chess Partner is a nice and really good GUI (see my messages about this GUI in FCP Forum ... I wrote this for 4-6 weeks ...) but also Chess Partner is not perfect and this is good. No software is perfect, no engine an no GUI. 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.