Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 05:50:42 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. All good and valid points Thomas and i have no problem with a difference of opinions, but i do object to being called a hypocrite for voicing my opinion. I realize that the majority of people who goes and buy a chess program don't give a rats ass if the engine supports the UCI protocol (if they even know what it is) and that we here at CCC only represent a fraction of all chess gui buyers, but the "freaks" as you rightly put it, are probably the only ones who can see through why you should buy Zappa over Chessbase or Chessmaster, especially when you can get one of the strongest engines in the world for free :) So i think that UCI is important and if the argument is that the people who is going to buy it, won't do so on account of UCI or no UCI, then i say what's the harm in adding it anyway? (as i am sure it would not be much work to implement) i don't hear anyone saying "i won't buy Zappa if it supports UCI!" :) BTW i have _no_ problem with Zappa if it turns out not to be supporting the UCI protocol, i am just saying that i will not spend my money on it then, that's all. What i express is not emotional or personal at all, it is a question of preference and functionality in compliance with what my needs are. I wish A. Cozzie all the best with his wonderful program and congratulate him with his unpresidented result at WCCC05, 10.5/11 is amazing in such a strong field! Jonas
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.