Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 00:20:58 11/01/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 01, 1999 at 00:29:47, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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.
Crafty is free, but be prepared to give a lot of bucks for a hardware on which
it will be equal to top commercial chess programs.
Christophe
>>>>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.