Author: Robert Allgeuer
Date: 10:32:07 09/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2005 at 08:19:22, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 07, 2005 at 07:30:09, Matthias Gemuh wrote: > >> >> >>> >>>I come to think I will probably buy it just to see, if it really is among the >>>best chess engines as its author claims. >>> >> >> >>Zappa may not support UCI. That means the author does not want extensive >>comparason of playing strength. We are to believe his claims by faith. > >You can load other UCI engines into Zappa's interface, and test the strength >that way. > >Your argument is completely bogus. > >-- >GCP The argument is not bogus at all, the word "extensive" makes the difference. As stated before, the Zappa decision undermines the value of having a standard in the first place. How do you propose to test properly and extensively, when e.g. a significant number of other engines would follow Zappa's example? In as many different GUIs as engines? Never between such Zappa-style proprietary engines, because their GUIs all assume that the _other_ engine is standard compliant, but is not compliant itself? Obviously this unfortunate decision precludes for example Zappa being tested against Junior, Fritz, ChessTiger et al. Moreover, if I understand correctly (only UCI support) for testing against WB engines you would have to fiddle around with converters. Robert
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.