Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:29:47 10/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 31, 1999 at 23:24:19, Micheal Cummings wrote: >On October 31, 1999 at 21:58:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 31, 1999 at 20:17:56, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>>On October 31, 1999 at 15:15:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 31, 1999 at 14:54:12, Pillsbury wrote: > > >>Here's a trivia question for you: How many _different_ internet hosts have >>downloaded a copy of crafty source or a crafty executable? This does not >>include book downloads or EGTB downloads. How many would you guess? I'll >>delay giving you the current stat. But start your guessing at 6 digits. >>At least. >> >>And I am talking about direct anonymous ftp from _my_ web site where we log >>every transfer. Gambitsoft and others are not counted. > >I am sure their are stacks of people, like you said. > > >>>When I hear people want to know about freeware chess, it is cause they do not >>>have enough money to buy a commercial product. And they want the strongest >>>Freeware they can get their hands on. >> >> >>The freeware programs can, I'll bet, beat you easily. Because they can beat >>me. So 'strongest' is meaningless unless you use one to play on a chess >server, which is not so common for commercial programs (no auto interface >except for the CSTal two-computer lash-up). When you are splitting firewood, >is an 8 pound sledge heavy enough? Or will a 16 pounder help even more? >After a while, more pounds does _not_ equate to better splitting. > >About 8/10 freeware chess programs can beat me easily. And as for strength, As >shown when Hiarcs topped the SSDF and other programs, Alot of people buy for the >pure strength of the engine. How many people would have gone out and bought CM6K >simply because it was top of the SSDF. Everyone agrees for serious chess the >interface and features have alot left to be desired for CM6K. > >People even if they are crap at chess, still feel good knowing that at least >they have the strongest program and if one day they beat it, which is what most >aim for. Then they know they have done something special. Beating the strongest >program on the SSDF means alot more to people that beating most freeware >engines. (there are a few which are strong; Crafty, comet, Lambchop, etc) which >people consider might compete with some commercials. > >It comes down to the simple male thought patterns of my penis is bigger than >your penis. The bigger the better, the stronger the better, the better looking >the better. The more expensive the Better. even though not always true, human >conditioning had made this so. You can argue against it, but there are a million >more for each person who would follow this rule. > >Like CM6K, and the debate that raged on here, how can a cheap program with >amature features beat the cream of the crop serious chess programs. > > Quite easily, really. Just put it on the right hardware. > > >>>I take your point of good freeware, and those can take up a very large part of >>>computer program usage by people in certain areas (like the internet). But they >>>are also a very small percentage of the whole market. Which is the point I an >>>trying to make. 3% good, 97% crap. >> >> >>I think your numbers are way off. I think that commercial and freeware programs have an _equal_ number of good examples and flops. > >On average most freeware are smaller programs with very unattractive interfaces. These are all sweeping generalizations that are simply wrong. Go count the number of lines in Linux, or in xwindows. or gcc. or you name it. Chess, maybe they are small. But do you have _any_ idea how many lines of code are in a commercial program, or are you just assuming? I'll bet you are assuming a lot of facts not in evidence. And not even facts. > >When you talk about your day and what freeware you use. I work as a chemist, >send email from work and home, surf the net. You do alot more than most people >on the net and program. But for the average user, Families, teenagers, people >who just chat and surf. Freeware is games and utilities to them, most, including >me, never use nor touch some of the things you get up too. > >You are looking at the net from your point of view which is not ordinary, you >lead a more extrordinary computer and net life, to say the normal surfer and >computer user. > >Freeware on average is more ungly to look at and has lesser features than >commercial comparatives. Commercials are not all perfect, but there is a high >percentage that they are. They need it to be to make money (usually for a >living) wheras freeware do it for a Hobbby, Interest, Love, to further the >advancement in specific fields. > again you paint with a broad brush, and totally miss the mark. "more ugly" vs "less ugly". I can show you ugly commercial programs, and beautiful freeware programs, I can show you ugly commercial programs and beautifully done ones. You are trying to separate by 'free' vs 'not-free'. That is not a viable point to discern the differences on. IE I doubt you can find _any_ operating system that is more comprehensive than linux. From the ground up, it supports everything. TCP/IP, every kind of web server, ftp server, PPP, SLIP, SLIRP, PLIP, POP, you name it. Good enough to be used by major US government agencies as their _exclusive_ operating system. Good enough to be used by _large_ enterprises as their exclusive file-server operating systems. Good enough to be supported and distributed by _every_ major PC manufacturer. And it is all sloppy/etc? >I will leave it at this, I have used many Commercial, Freeware and shareware, >Freeware is USUALLY (but not always) unaaceptable, shareware is a step better, >and fully commercial in-store programs are another step ahead. There is crap in >all, but on AVERAGE from my experience this is the case. > >There was a time when I would try every freeware thing that looked interesting, >and 99% are now off my system. > >I think we will have to agree is disagree on this, yes there are good and bad on >both sides, but more bad on freeware IMHO :) I simply remind you of windows 95/98. They were (and are) bad from the get-go. Which means everything stuck on top of them is bad. NT is good. So you can't even blame it on the company since one did both. > >I have a question for you, if you had the top ten programs on the SSDF and the >top 10 freeware programs. And were told to get rid of 10 of the 20. What >percentage would be commercial and what percentage would be freeware. > >If you can give me 5 freeware programs that you would seriously keep over >commercial programs in the final 10 programs and give me a good reason, then I >will declare you KING !!!! Simple... About 1/2 of them seem very strong playing each other, but not so strong playing strong human players. Ask around on ICC. I would cull the 'anti-computer' tuned programs first, as I don't care much about computer vs computer playing. If my goal was to put together the strongest program I possibly can, and I have access to some good hardware (like the guys working at Digital) I would keep Crafty. you ought to try it at 20M nodes per second. Or even at 7M. Either is a holy terror. Even against your friendly PIII/600 or whatever. And there are other reasons for choosing freeware. free updates. Your 10 commercial programs will cost you 1000 per year. I can use that to buy a new computer every year instead.
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.