Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:24:39 11/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 1998 at 16:32:39, Reynolds Takata wrote: > Ed in the past i have imagined the possibility of two programs(Engines) >working in unison to produce a stonger program. Indeed i believe that this >merger between Rebel and Tiger can be a fruitful one. However i think that it >is faulty for you NOT to attempt the straightforward multi engine feature such >as Fritz, Millenium and Junior have for this reason. Why should he be forced to achieve the best play through the method that you suggest? Actually, I like the idea of multiple engines, and suggested long ago having multiple threads of execution, each running different algorithms. A thread, as a lightweight process, is even better than a separate exe. However, there are some problems with this approach, as were pointed out by the experts in connection with my queries. >Indeed if you create a >program that you CAN SHOW to be the absolute strongest then yes it will sell, at >least until it is overtaken by another program. 1. It is impossible to demonstrate this. How will we know which is strongest? Best SSDF Rating? Wins the most micro contests? In either case, the rating seems to have no connection with sales *whatsoever* as the Chessmaster series is the best selling and it neither wins the most contests nor has the best SSDF rating. So even if such a thing were possible to demonstrate (which it clearly is not) there is no indication that it will have any impact on sales. >And that program might even be >an engine for fritz or millenium. If it is, then the owners of Fritz or Mill >will have the strongest programs plus the FANTASTIC feature of other >engines(hiarcs, nimzo etc). It is true that people want to have the strongest >program, but it is my oppinion that MOST people are more interested in a variety >of playing styles(multiple engines). What is your opinion worth without market research? I also like different styles of play, but to make decisions of this nature, it takes careful research, as I am sure the makers of these software products have performed. >The ease of moving from one chess program >to another without having to start up an entirely different program is EXTREMELY >attractive. I read on the gambit soft page "Do people really want to keep >looking at the same GUI" as if that would bore them, well i'm sorry to say no >they are not going to get tired of the interface because the MOST IMPORTANT >thing is the moves produced, not what a prog looks like. For me too, but I think a lot of people are swayed by glitzy (read:ugly) hyped 3-d interfaces. If *everyone* that reads this newsgroup [apparently about 4000] bought a copy of Ed's program that will not support even the smallest of software houses. They need to sell to the broad consumer audience, including aiming at the majority of chess players -- most of whom have never even heard of CCC. >Besides that i could >look at the fritz GUI for the next 20 years and be happy with just the few >engines i have now. > >You are fallling into Henry Fords trap(founder of ford automotive)- He wouldn't >go with the times and start adding fancy features and colors to the Model T car, >because he said people will always take price and quality over frills. A few >years later GM(general motors) was the top manufacturer in the world, despite >the fact that Ford had more capital and previously a monopoly. This is because >they offered color and frills, because that's what people want. The problem >with you however i don't think you will survive like Ford automotive has. You >do not have time to wait to start getting into the multi engine market. If you >had included the possibility of multi engines in Rebel(besises earlie versions >of rebel) i'm sure it would have sold 30% more than it has currently. You just said that the external appearance is valueless, then in your object lesson you describe external appearance as the reason Ford lost market share. Here you are predicting Rebel's demise -- based on what? That he is not incorporating multiple engines in the way that *you* see fit. I think that is a bit arrogant. I also think that Ed has really been getting the short stick in this newsgroup for the past month or so. His worst crime? Lowering prices. Ed needs to have Win32 support and is working towards that goal (it has been announced). You imagine, somehow, that he should instead be incorporating multi-engine functionality not in the way he chooses, but the way you choose. Further, these others that are incorporating multiple engines -- are they publishing the DLL specification that they are choosing so that anyone else can use the engine? Not at all. Hence, it is no different than using an exe except that a thread is a more lightweight task. The overhead of thread verses exe is not going to be all that significant, anyway. If I were Ed, I would be very frightened against using any software which is copyleft or incorporates copyleft. If you do so, you have to give away your work for free. Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. The licensing of these DLL's like Crafty etc. is a bit of a puzzle to me. Crafty is not copyleft, but copyright by Dr. Hyatt so I can imagine how that might work. I do not know what the motivation behind some of these extra engines are, but unless the interface is public, there is little or no benefit _for the consumer_ over using separate exe's. For multiple engines, I use Winboard and any of the Winboard compatible programs. While I admit this is related to the model you endorse (except it is really *open*) I don't see how well this relates to the overall chess retail market. You are someone who knows more about chess than I do, and perhaps you know a lot about building software and distribution. I have no problems with making suggestions to a manufacturer, but suggesting that they will fail because they do not do things the way you endorse is 'a bit fresh' to my way of thinking.
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.