Author: Peter Skinner
Date: 09:48:09 11/27/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2004 at 11:35:52, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On November 27, 2004 at 11:25:37, Peter Skinner wrote: > >>On November 27, 2004 at 11:16:26, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2004 at 11:11:01, Peter Skinner wrote: >>> >>>>I have read many posts where some are using the native engine from the >>>>Chesspartner interface, some are using the UCI engine, but no one has yet to try >>>>the Winboard version of Gandalf 6.0. >>>> >>>>Which is the preferred engine to use? I would assume the native engine from an >>>>advertising stand point and the UCI for actual results? >>>> >>>>Peter >>> >>> >>> Hi Peter >>> Do you expect small/big differences between >>> these engines? >>> Kurt >> >>Well in fact yes. >> >>Some are reporting huge wins using the UCI engine in the Chessbase interface, >>and others are reporting losses vs the same engines using the native version. >> >>So it is a bit confusing. If the engines are in fact identical, the interface >>should not matter. >> >>It is just a question. Nothing really to it other than information seeking. >> >>Peter > > > Are such differences not merely due to > the less number of games played? > Kurt I took that into account as well, but it seems those who are using the UCI version are doing much better than those using the native engine. I just found it odd. Technically the engine itself should be identical, but even with Shredder we have found the UCI version is slightly faster. 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.