Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:05:25 07/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2005 at 16:39:56, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >On July 18, 2005 at 16:33:08, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 18, 2005 at 15:06:10, Steve Glanzfeld wrote: >> >>>On July 18, 2005 at 14:50:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>It is a commerical program with a lot of success. >>> >>>Yes, but this is a poor argument. Which format would you consider better in >>>terms of quality, logic and compatibility, overall? >> >>Those things are practically irrelevant. > >Ok :) I don't doubt that your analysis of the software market is correct. But my >question was what you consider BETTER, not what's relevant in terms of market >power. Actually I do not know which one is better. It may also be like Winboard interface verses UCI interface. Some things about one interface are better and some things about the other interface are better. For setup, UCI is miles better. Winboard's sending only the move to play instead of resending the whole game so far every time is better. I have not really studied the Chess960 interface specifications. Here is my guess: RS and SMK are both smart people, so probably both interfaces work well enough. SMK is a well known and successful vendor who embraces open systems and gets others to follow him. Therefore, his interface is the one that will succeed best. It is possible that both will succeed. >By the way, I think Shredder's (Shredder Classic) share of the market is >ridiculously small. Chessmaster and Fritz rule, and so far, they have not >participated in the Chess960 format discussion. For some reason, Chessbase has no interest in open systems. For instance, the way to make a chessbase engine is secret. So I do not think that there will ever be any noise from them about chess 960. ChessMaster is (by a landslide) the biggest selling chess program.
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.