Author: Lawrence S. Tamarkin
Date: 00:53:18 10/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
Your post is very incitefull. I think of all the Windows chess programs I've seen, Genius 5 and 6, has the finast scalable boards, with the best overall look, in both 2d & 3d. (Also Genius 2 in Dos looked pretty cool to me). Perhaps Fritz6 will equal this, or come close? Larry On October 27, 1999 at 15:35:02, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> Does the Rebel DOS-like environment and all the other things I >> mentioned bug anyone but me? > >Well, it is indeed more convenient to run straight Windows program and these >also generally look better. But the price for Windows convenience and looks is >at least 5% in CPU performance (likely more with all the stuff people run under >Windows, and especially on newer CPU's dependent on on-chip cache for their high >speed [the CPU is internally clocked 4-6 times faster then when accessing the >external memory) , the flushing of the CPU cache with interrupt driven Windows >threads can make much bigger difference with programs well tunded to fit their >core code in the 128-256K on-chip cache memory), plus greatly reduced hash >tables. If you have 64Mb RAM on your machine, in Windows 98 you can safely use >32Mb without worrying about disk swapping. In DOS you get 60-63 Mb for hash >tables. Which means you can have twice as large time limit before the table >fills up. And with programs which keep hash tables between moves, thus can make >good use of any amount of RAM you have, it makes diffgerence at any time >control. > >So, it's a tradeoff. If you're running the program in a competition, you would >want every last bit of performance, so you would go with a DOS program (provided >it is otherwise the same engine, i.e. it isn't an older 16-bit code under DOS >and newer 32 bit code under Windows as with Hiarcs 7/7.32, but even here the >16-bit DOS version seems to be a bit stronger). > > >There is also a somewhat needless low standard for the DOS UI, i.e. I find it >somewhat annoying to look at the bare bone low res VGA graphics, when the >typical VGA card of the last 3-4 years can support twice as high resolution. So >switching on the same machine between, say Hiarcs 7.32 and Rebel 10 is a >distracting, esepcially on laptops where LCD screens don't have naturally >stretchable pixels for different resolutions but have fixed size sharp square >pixels. On such screens low res means you either have to watch a tiny image in >the center of the screen or with pixel doubler (which replicates each pixel with >2x2 sharp pixels), the picture will fill up the screen but you get a very ugly >jagged edges and large, quite visible, squares for pixels. All that is >completely needless annoyance, given how much effort these folks spend on their >programs, it is a comparatively trivial matter to provide a board and piece sets >in several common resolutions and let user pick the right one for their screen. > >As for scaling window, I don't care about it as long as I can have the largest >square board with matching piece sizes that fits on the screen (and no program >gives that, unfortunately, they all have to have some stuff below and above, >cutting down on the max square). CM6k can magnify the board close to the max >possible, but it keeps its 2D & 3D pieces always the same size, so it is a >useless capability there (does anyone ever try out these things over there?). >Fritz UI has a fairly large max board with scalable pieces, but still not as >large as CM6k (or as the screen will allow), they have to have oversized buttons >and other items below and above, which could well be on the sides (or activated >when needed over something else). Rebel 10 has a large board option, but it has >an ugly deformed piece set for it (compared to its default size pieces). So I >haven't seen yet a program, DOS or Windows, which uses the max screen square and >the matching piece sizes. Of other visual features, 3D set is for me useless, >since I tend to use these programs to play chess not as a screen blanker or a >visual artwork exhibit. > >I think with a little bit of more attention to DOS interface (and an artist plus >a few chessplayers who actually use the program helping in the design), you >could have as good looking set (not necessarily freely scalable but in several >discrete sizes) and better performance for DOS program than for the Windows >versions. But, looking at the priorities of various companies, that won't >happen. You can get looks or you can get brains, and you can't have both. I >personally would pay for upgrade of DOS Rebel 10 (which I like playing more than >other programs) just for the higher res pieces and a full size board (with >decently shaped pieces), without any other improvements. But Rebel Century >doesn't seem to have either. (And I agree with you, their database algorithms >could use some optimizations as well.)
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.