Author: Thomas Mayer
Date: 04:53:51 09/05/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Jonas, I have really no idea what your problem is ? IMO GCP is completely right, at least in most points. I may add something: we all here in this forum might think that we are sooooooo important. In fact we are not. I am very sure that in total number of sales we play no role at all. The real freak will buy Zappa anyway and the usual customer does not care at all about protocols. The question may be: Why want somebody to prevent that his engine plays under ChessBase. I think the answer is simple: At least in older UCI implementation of ChessBase there were a LOT of bugs and the UCI-engine was always harmed by those bugs. Therefor a totally wrong picture of their real strength were painted. And this might have even some influence on the normal customers. So this way it is maybe better that a comparison in the ChessBase interface is not possible. At least this is a point of view one can have. So IMO there is definitely NO NEED for the Zappa sellers to include an UCI version. At least this will definitely not decide wether it will be a financial success or not. By the way: Elo system works fine, you can test Zappa then against every UCI engine and this should produce enough data to get it's real rating. Greets, Thomas P.S.: I definitely would like to see a UCI-Zappa in the package -> but I am definitely not upset when they will not do it. ChessBase is doing this all the time - and to be for so long on the market is definitely no excuse.
This page took 0.01 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.