Author: Zheng Zhixian
Date: 14:23:42 09/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 2005 at 13:26:32, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 07, 2005 at 13:04:26, Zheng Zhixian wrote: > >>On September 06, 2005 at 17:32:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On September 06, 2005 at 16:45:20, Marc Lacrosse wrote: >>> >>>>On September 06, 2005 at 15:54:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Xboard is the best protocol for play, I think, but it is useless for >>>>>configuration. >>>>> >>>>>UCI is far better for that. >>>>> >>>>>I would like to see the two protocols merged. >>>> >>>>With both Wb2UCI (thanks Odd Gunnar) and Polyglot (thanks Fabien) we have them >>>>merged. Today. >>> >>>NOthing close to that. >>> >>>You want to set up your Winboard for 256 MB hash and to find the Nalimov >>>tablebase files on e:/nalimov;f:/nalimov-overflow >>>How will Wb2UCI or Polglot help at all? >>> >>>I do not want to edit any ini files. >>> >>>>Just a little rough on the edges... >>>> >>>>An example: combining TheKing chessmaster engine with WB2uci and PG you can >>>>adjust any parameter and have it play under WB with your own book choice. >>>>This is impossible in any other modern GUI or configuration without horribly >>>>painful manoeuvers. >>>> >>>>If we could get WB2UCI + Polyglot working in a little more user-friendly >>>>interface, than we would have the perfect intermediate solution between any >>>>engine and any GUI. >>>> >>>>... at the exception of the deliberately schizophrenic chessbase engines, but >>>>this is another story, and we can begin to hope that their hegemonic story is >>>>beginning to go to its lonely end. >>> >>>The way to fix it is to provide a comprehensive single protocol that has all the >>>strengths of both protocols and none of the weaknesses. >> >>That's not going to help. >> >>Chessbase products has already set the dangerous precedent of supporting >>UCI/WInboard in their interface but their engines aren't/ >> >>Now vendors of other professional products are starting to use that as an excuse >>to do the same thing. >> >>Why wouldn't they? It forces people to buy their GUI, it ensures that their >>engine will always be running as expected since they control the GUI... >> >>With time, every product will have their own GUI which supports >>UCI/Winboard/whatever but with their engines locked in to the GUI. >> >>What use is if every interface supports UCI/WB but their engines don't?? > >It's better than nothing. > >And Shredder (on the other hand) has taken the precedent of making the main >engine a UCI engine. So if you like the approach taken by Shredder then buy >that one and don't buy ChessBase. That will force change if it is impotrant >enough to the users that they change their buying habits. Yes and zappa falls into this category now. Personally, I don't understand what they are thinking. Chessbase products while not as popular as Chessmaster, has at least a solid base of users ,well known enough to the none-cc fans. This is a base large enough to ignore the computer chess fans anyway. Zappa is a new unknown unestablished product, its claim to fame is that it won the WCCC, a fact known only to some people, most of them CC fans. My guess is a very large percentage of buyers are going to be CC fans. To piss them off by withholding UCI in Zappa on purpose just because chessbase does it , is most certainly going to hurt them a lot more than chessbase.
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.