Author: Frank Quisinsky
Date: 04:30:10 09/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 2002 at 06:56:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 25, 2002 at 05:10:29, Frank Quisinsky wrote: > >>On September 25, 2002 at 01:17:23, Harald Faber wrote: >> >>>Thanks, Frank. Now everything comes clear. >>>Can you imagine WHY? >> >>I have made this. >> >>>I would prefer one of the 10 PRETTY ones, none from the 150 ugly ones. >>>Still don't get the point? >> >>I have an other opinion. >> >>>Sure, he just has to buy Tiger 15. >> >>Not important for me (buy or not buy). >>Important for me is compatible to standards or not. >>For me a very easy point. >> >>Best >>Frank > >I am sure that commercial programmers are going >to sell programs that can use the winboard interface, >if enough people tell them that they buy >their program only if they can use the winboard interface. > >I guess that there are simply not enough users >to tell them this information. > >Uri Hi Uri, possible, but believe me the firms and programmers now the winboard pages or winboard forum. I have contacts in the latest years to all firms which for sell chess software. The best work for the following commercial GUIs: - Chess Assistant, Victor added an excellant WB support, also UCI compatible! - Chess Partner, Lex made also an excellant work, now UCI compatible! - Chessmaster, I know Chessmaster 8000, good support for WB protocol. - Chess Academy, good support, in the next version also UCI compatible! ChessBase GUIs have a bad support for the standard WB protocol. ChessBase have an own engine protocol and supported UCI since a while. Shredder GUI is from the commercial GUIs my favorite engine test GUI (number 3 for me). Number 1 = WinBoard, Number 2 = Arena, Number 3 = Shredder! But only a hand full engine programmers ignored the standards UCI an WB. Mark Uniacke have after my information a WB engine. Also TheKing is much years compatible to WB (now available in Chessmaster 8000, 9000). Have this information from Johan de Koning from the Dutch Open tournaments. Much not available but strong engines have also WB support (is clear). For me is not important that all of this top programs must have this support to standards, I have more fun on amateur programs. And with Gandalf, Ruffian I have enough strong engines which are compatible to standards. Little bit adventure opinions why the top programs are not compatible to standards. It's not my problem but the most of the users have more fun with engines with supported standards. Best example now Ruffian! Users of all GUIs can used Ruffian and have fun. Good for computer chess! Time for thinking for much other programmers which ignored standards. At the moment I have fun with Arasan and Queen, I don't need any of the top programs for my hobby computer chess but from time to time I use also top programs. Uri, we have a nice hobby! So many interesting things, every day! Much more interesting since for 3-4 years. More engines supported standards and all users have more fun on computer chess. 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.