![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
I am very curious. I am sure there are users out there that have both Winboard and another GUI. Aside from the obvious price difference, what are the advantages of Winboard over your other favorite GUI?
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
I only use Winboard to check games online, it's the fastest and the most lightweight GUI around, so if I see a PGN posted online, I copy it and paste it into Winboard, and if it's a text line that I have to play into the GUI move by move, Winboard's pocket board is excellent for that (with other GUI you'd need to switch back and forth between the GUI and the place where the game is, while Winboard can float freely over the window while I read an article).
Here's an example of me reading Dan Heisman's Novice Nook with Winboard:
See how Winboard fits perfectly there? Other GUIs are probably going to fail when trying this.
And that's it. For playing chess against engines, trying new engines, analyzing with engines, and so on, I use Shredder Classic because of ease of use and user-friendly features. To store my analysis I use Bookup, but only because I have had the software since 2004, by today standards it seems overpriced.
Here's an example of me reading Dan Heisman's Novice Nook with Winboard:
See how Winboard fits perfectly there? Other GUIs are probably going to fail when trying this.
And that's it. For playing chess against engines, trying new engines, analyzing with engines, and so on, I use Shredder Classic because of ease of use and user-friendly features. To store my analysis I use Bookup, but only because I have had the software since 2004, by today standards it seems overpriced.
Nice post Uly. Thank you.
Indeed. Does winboard import books in Chessbase format? It seems to be the most widely used format. I remeber the Old Rebel programs would import chessmaster,Chessbase and PGN books and merge them!
I ask the author himself here.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?dln=426010;pid=404702
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?dln=426010;pid=404702
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
I use WinBoard because it is open source. That means you can make it do anything you want, no matter how crazy it is. And precisely in the way you want it done. You don't have to make any concession to anything. It is just absolutely perfect! (And if it isn't, it is your own fault!)
With other GUIs you always have to put up with the garbage others decide give you.
WinBoard only supports Polyglot book format. AFAIK it is the only open format. Chessbase format is proprietry. I think it is good design anyway to support a single format, and provide converters for other formats. Because converters would be generally useful, not just for WinBoard. Other GUIs supporting the format you convert to would benefit from the converter just as much as WinBoard would. Which would not be the case if you put the code to import the foreign format in WinBoard. So it is better for everyne to have the converter. And when you have it, there is no reason why WinBoard should be able to import foreign book formats.
With other GUIs you always have to put up with the garbage others decide give you.
WinBoard only supports Polyglot book format. AFAIK it is the only open format. Chessbase format is proprietry. I think it is good design anyway to support a single format, and provide converters for other formats. Because converters would be generally useful, not just for WinBoard. Other GUIs supporting the format you convert to would benefit from the converter just as much as WinBoard would. Which would not be the case if you put the code to import the foreign format in WinBoard. So it is better for everyne to have the converter. And when you have it, there is no reason why WinBoard should be able to import foreign book formats.
And this converter is where...... In winboard? Does said converter also 'reverse' convert to the previous formats so one disseminate one's studies to the general public using another generally accepted GUI? this would indeed be a highly desirable feature. Especially if merging were available.
Sidebar. Is the now free rebel programs windows -able? Without the hassle of Dos box etc?
Just checked Ed's site - apparently the XP version is due to come out from what I read. I hope it handles XP 64.
Sidebar. Is the now free rebel programs windows -able? Without the hassle of Dos box etc?
Just checked Ed's site - apparently the XP version is due to come out from what I read. I hope it handles XP 64.
No, the converter would be an independent program, with no relation to WinBoard at all. That is the power of it. I built such converters for the XQWLight book format and the Cyclone book format to Polyglot format. And they are always one way; for the reverse conversion you would need another converter.
> That means you can make it do anything you want, no matter how crazy it is.
Unless one is not a programmer.
Alas that is all too often the case at these hitech forums eh? One must have at least a BA in computerscience to even use the just features to the best of their design!
Yeah, I hope h.g.muller didn't mean that the GUI is for programmers to add their own features, as Interfaces are usually designed for the common user in mind, and the common user won't know, and shouldn't be forced to, do programming to make the GUI satisfy his needs.
> Unless one is not a programmer.
That falls under "If not, it is your own fault"...
There really is no excuse for not being a programmer, other than laziness. Programming is nothing but telling the computer what to do, in a language of about 40 words. Saying that you would need a BA for it is as silly as saying one would need a BA for learning how to ride a bike.
Other GUIs satisfy my needs without having to be a programmer.
It runs the other way too, I can claim Winboard is lazy design because it expects the user to implement his own features.
The Winboard case could be said even if it didn't have support for Winboard engines, "you want to load engines? Program it yourself!", just like any other feature.
Are you going to say that Stockfish is the best engine just because it's open source and if it's weaker it's the user's fault for not being a programmer? The same can be said about Crafty. Being open source says nothing about the quality of a product, Crafty is a subpar engine and Winboard could be the Crafty of Chess GUIs despite being open source.
It runs the other way too, I can claim Winboard is lazy design because it expects the user to implement his own features.
The Winboard case could be said even if it didn't have support for Winboard engines, "you want to load engines? Program it yourself!", just like any other feature.
Are you going to say that Stockfish is the best engine just because it's open source and if it's weaker it's the user's fault for not being a programmer? The same can be said about Crafty. Being open source says nothing about the quality of a product, Crafty is a subpar engine and Winboard could be the Crafty of Chess GUIs despite being open source.
> Other GUIs satisfy my needs without having to be a programmer.
Well, they did not satisfy my needs.
You seem to alter the subject to "which GUI is better?". This was NOT the question of the OP, and thus not the question I answered. It was: "Why do you use WinBoard?".
If there are GUIs that do satisfy your needs, why would you even bother to look at others? Let alone program them.
Your comparison to engines is misleading. While programming is easy, it is not easy to design an algorithm that plays strong Chess. Designing algorithms in general, and Chess algorithms in particular, (i.e. which moves to prune in a given situation, which branches to extend) is a completely different task then programming a known algorithm.
So a more apt comparison would be:
If your primary requirement was to have an engine that displayed all its options in Spanish, rather than English... Then indeed Stockfish would probably be your best choice. You would only have to use the system's Search function to find a file in the Stockfish sources that contained the text of a known option name, and when you open that file in an editor, and search the same text again, you would probably find it in a table with all the option texts. You would just change all these to Spanish, recompile, and bingo! Perhaps 20-min job. And you would not even have to be a programmer, the only skill it would take is to know how to use an editor...
> There really is no excuse for not being a programmer, other than laziness. Programming is nothing but telling the computer what to do, in a language of about 40 words. Saying that you would need a BA for it is as silly as saying one would need a BA for learning how to ride a bike.
That is silly!
Using your analogy I could tell someone that it is just complete laziness that they don't compose their own music. Writing music (at least music based on the western music practice) is just combining the 12 notes (letters) of the western musical system into a sound that is pleasing to you. By your logic that seems even easier than learning the 40 words of computer programming.
Again, not a good comparison. Composing music is a creative act, like designing Chess algorithms.
You should compare programming to the ability to write down a piece of music you hear.
You really overrate programming. With most programming jobs, and especially those that you encounter in GUI programming, you know exactly in advance what you want done. (The music has already been composed by others, as it were, in this case Shredder.) E.g. you want the 'Load Engine' dialog to pop up when a user clicks there and there on an engine name. There is no creativity in that. You just tell the computer it has to do it. It is like writing a grocery list when you go shopping. Hardly world-class literature. You have to be exceptionally gifted to write stuff that would earn you a Nobel prize, and most people could never do it no matter the amount of effort they put in. But any average and even most sub-average persons can learn to make a shopping list.
Not being an author is not the same as being illiterate.
It is devising original methods for how to do things, such as WinBoard's detour under-promotion, which makes it a great work of art.
Not the programming.
You should compare programming to the ability to write down a piece of music you hear.
You really overrate programming. With most programming jobs, and especially those that you encounter in GUI programming, you know exactly in advance what you want done. (The music has already been composed by others, as it were, in this case Shredder.) E.g. you want the 'Load Engine' dialog to pop up when a user clicks there and there on an engine name. There is no creativity in that. You just tell the computer it has to do it. It is like writing a grocery list when you go shopping. Hardly world-class literature. You have to be exceptionally gifted to write stuff that would earn you a Nobel prize, and most people could never do it no matter the amount of effort they put in. But any average and even most sub-average persons can learn to make a shopping list.
Not being an author is not the same as being illiterate.
It is devising original methods for how to do things, such as WinBoard's detour under-promotion, which makes it a great work of art.
Not the programming.
> Again, not a good comparison. Composing music is a creative act, like designing Chess algorithms.
>
> You should compare programming to the ability to write down a piece of music you hear.
>
> You really overrate programming. With most programming jobs, and especially those that you encounter in GUI programming, you know exactly in advance what you want done. (The music has already been composed by others, as it were, in this case Shredder.) E.g. you want the 'Load Engine' dialog to pop up when a user clicks there and there on an engine name. There is no creativity in that. You just tell the computer it has to do it. It is like writing a grocery list when you go shopping. Hardly world-class literature. You have to be exceptionally gifted to write stuff that would earn you a Nobel prize, and most people could never do it no matter the amount of effort they put in. But any average and even most sub-average persons can learn to make a shopping list.
>
> Not being an author is not the same as being illiterate.
>
> It is devising original methods for how to do things, such as WinBoard's detour under-promotion, which makes it a great work of art.
Although I disagree that I overrate programming, and that programming is like writing a grocery list. I will work under the assumption that what you said is true (although that is debatable)
Even if programming is like writing a grocery list and even IF I should have made the analogy to writing down the music one hears (which is not an easy task even for a lot of professional musicians); I would not consider some one lazy who did not learn the musical notes. They might just want to enjoy music made by others (which means they will like some music and dislike other music). As music is my profession I must know about it, and continue to learn about it. Programming is not my profession nor something I hold much interest it. I just want to use programs for various work and/or hobby related tasks. Not learning programming does not make me lazy. Just as if someone who loves jazz is not lazy if they do not learn the mixolydian scale. All that matters is that they know they love jazz.
I think where some of our disagreements lie is that you and I expect different things from our end users. As a musician/artist when I create something I have to let it go....and let it be what it will be to the end users (many who might not like it!) And that is fine and one of the risks of creating anything for public consumption whether it be for profit or not.
You on the other hand seem to expect the end user to either like what you have put out there or fix it themselves. But I as a end user don't want to fix it. I have enough work to do. For some people listening to music is an escape and they don't want to WORK at it. They just want it to take them away. So they are NOT lazy! Just as chess is my escape. Any software I use should help me escape! As I said above I have enough work to do (as do most of us). I don't want to "fix" the software I use for chess. I spend the vast majority of my day fixing my music, my skill on my instrument,, my student's musical problems etc. etc.
Just as the programmer who has spent all day fixing code, algorithms, compiles etc. etc. most likely would just want to come home and put on the record that most allows them to escape for a few minutes.
> You on the other hand seem to expect the end user to either like what you have put out there or fix it themselves. But I as a end user don't want to fix it.
I think you don't take proper account of the fact that the 'end user' is really me.
I did not create WinBoard. It existed long before I made my re-entry into computer Chess, and even at that time enjoyed great popularity. (WinBoard 4.2.7 is still one of the most popular downloadable clients for ICS play, and before the advent of command-line tools for ultra-fast engine games it was also the industry standard for engine testing.)
There were just some features missing that were crucial to me, and not delivered by any software available. So I adapted it to my needs. If other end users have other needs, or don't like how I solved what I perceived as shortcomings, I don't see why they could not do the same.
Because of the knowledge I acquired in adding the features that were important to me, it is sometimes very easy for me to do changes that do not directly benefit me. So I sometimes honor requests. But don't feel the slightest obligation to obey every wish or demand from other end users. This is not a payed job, and if it was, I wouldn't want it.
I have made many additions to WinBoard that I consider generally useful, and easy to operate. Other end users can use that to their advantage, if they want. But whether one particular person cannot understand WinBoard, and has no problems on any other GUI is totally meaningless. There will allways be persons that are not able to understand a particular piece of software. If doing things in way A would make it impossibly difficult for 5% of the potential users, while doing it in way B would improve matters so that now only 1% suffer that problem, it will still be possible to come up with someone that belongs to the 1%.
>> You on the other hand seem to expect the end user to either like what you have put out there or fix it themselves. But I as a end user don't want to fix it.
> I think you don't take proper account of the fact that the 'end user' is really me.
>
> I did not create WinBoard. It existed long before I made my re-entry into computer Chess, and even at that time enjoyed great popularity. (WinBoard 4.2.7 is still one of the most popular downloadable clients for ICS play, and before the advent of command-line tools for ultra-fast engine games it was also the industry standard for engine testing.)
>
> There were just some features missing that were crucial to me, and not delivered by any software available. So I adapted it to my needs. If other end users have other needs, or don't like how I solved what I perceived as shortcomings, I don't see why they could not do the same.
>
> Because of the knowledge I acquired in adding the features that were important to me, it is sometimes very easy for me to do changes that do not directly benefit me. So I sometimes honor requests. But don't feel the slightest obligation to obey every wish or demand from other end users. This is not a payed job, and if it was, I wouldn't want it.
>
> I have made many additions to WinBoard that I consider generally useful, and easy to operate. Other end users can use that to their advantage, if they want. But whether one particular person cannot understand WinBoard, and has no problems on any other GUI is totally meaningless. There will allways be persons that are not able to understand a particular piece of software. If doing things in way A would make it impossibly difficult for 5% of the potential users, while doing it in way B would improve matters so that now only 1% suffer that problem, it will still be possible to come up with someone that belongs to the 1%.
Wow, did you change the topic!
You took what was turning into an interesting debate and somehow turned it back into a 'I don't have to change winboard if I don't want to" topic again.
I don't think I have ever said you are OBLIGATED to change winboard. Even people who make commercial software are not OBLIGATED to change things. But you need to stop being so defensive when someone doesn't like winboard. And you need to stop trying to put down users who don't like winboard as if somehow they are lesser beings.
I would prefer you don't change winboard because the people who like it, like it for what it is. Now if I had never tried winboard ever and just didn't like the "look" of it, then you could complain that my reactions to winboard were shallow. But as I have tried it numerous times, I can in good conscious say my reactions are not shallow. They are my reactions. (which is why the art analogy was relevant) The fact that it doesn't work for me does not lessen winboard in anyway, nor does it make me somehow lazy.
That is just nonsense: people that don't want WinBoard changed can just use old versions.
I don't see what I said as a change in topic. If it is, it is the direction into which you want to steer it that is off topic. I entered this thread as an end user: it was asked what advantages using WinBoard had for me, personally, over using other GUIs. Well, the advantage is that I can bend it to my will. There would have been other open-source programs for which that would also be true, but WinBoard seemed the most advanced, and I happened to be acquainted with it, because my background was that of an engine developer, and engine-engine games were my primary interest. So part of it is no doubt 'historic accident': I needed something, and WinBoard happened to be in my field of view, and suitable. Truthfully answered.
But every time I say that, people start whining: "yeah, but only if you are a programmer". They just have no idea how feeble an excuse that is.
I don't try to put down anyone that does not like WinBoard. Putting down others I happily leave to the Arena team. On the contrary, I always take an effort to figure out exactly why they don't like it. Because often this produces ideas for improvements or new features that are trivial to implement. (Example: letting the GUI play the move suggested by the engine by simply clicking on that move in analysis mode.) Sometimes it doesn't, because their dissatisfaction turns out to be just a matter of taste, and their taste happens to be different from mine. But then, at least, I know for sure that no opportunity for general improvement was lost. Good ideas are always welcome; I might benefit from their implementation too, even if they would not occur to me spntaneously.
In general, I expect people to like changes that enable them to do things they could not do before. Because they could always refrain from doing those things, so I would say they can never have a negative impact. Criticism like "I don't like the new WinBoard, becasue of its variant support, which causes there to be a 'New Variant' item in the File menu" is just laughable.
I don't see what I said as a change in topic. If it is, it is the direction into which you want to steer it that is off topic. I entered this thread as an end user: it was asked what advantages using WinBoard had for me, personally, over using other GUIs. Well, the advantage is that I can bend it to my will. There would have been other open-source programs for which that would also be true, but WinBoard seemed the most advanced, and I happened to be acquainted with it, because my background was that of an engine developer, and engine-engine games were my primary interest. So part of it is no doubt 'historic accident': I needed something, and WinBoard happened to be in my field of view, and suitable. Truthfully answered.
But every time I say that, people start whining: "yeah, but only if you are a programmer". They just have no idea how feeble an excuse that is.
I don't try to put down anyone that does not like WinBoard. Putting down others I happily leave to the Arena team. On the contrary, I always take an effort to figure out exactly why they don't like it. Because often this produces ideas for improvements or new features that are trivial to implement. (Example: letting the GUI play the move suggested by the engine by simply clicking on that move in analysis mode.) Sometimes it doesn't, because their dissatisfaction turns out to be just a matter of taste, and their taste happens to be different from mine. But then, at least, I know for sure that no opportunity for general improvement was lost. Good ideas are always welcome; I might benefit from their implementation too, even if they would not occur to me spntaneously.
In general, I expect people to like changes that enable them to do things they could not do before. Because they could always refrain from doing those things, so I would say they can never have a negative impact. Criticism like "I don't like the new WinBoard, becasue of its variant support, which causes there to be a 'New Variant' item in the File menu" is just laughable.
Sweet Rosy O'grady! If I wanted this much grief, confrontation, and relatively trivial nitpicking I would not be hiding out in my den with computers for chess and talking to my wife instead!
Winboard is what it is. Love it or leave it. Sheeeeeeeeesh.
One thing I do know for certain - Do not waste time trying to change HGM's mind. Ain't gonna happen!!! Ever! Did I just say ever? Yes -ever is the operative word here....
Yeah, basically h.g.muller said "I use Winboard because I am a programmer and can add all the features to it that I wish."
Non-programmers are screwed and called lazy...
Non-programmers are screwed and called lazy...
Screwed? Because someone is friendly enough to make it an almost a full-time job to to give non-programmers what they want, if it is feasible and not too silly?
I have been known to change my mind many times in the past. In fact I always bend to reason. If you guys don't manage it, it is just because your arguments suck!
In this particular case, they are so dismal you even fail to make any point at all. There was not a single feature request in this trhread for me to refuse! It was asked why I used WinBoard, and the fact happens to be that I use it because it is open source, so that I can change it. If that offends anyone here, that is his problem. You really expect me to refrain from answering such questions if I think the answer would hurt your sensitivities??? I have a much better idea: if you don't want to know, then don't ask!
Perhaps this would be a good question for you all to ponder about: do you know any GUI (commercial or otherwise) which gives you a better deal than take-it-or-leave-it? If you BUY Chessbase or Shredder, can you then bother them with unlimited feature requests that they will implement for you within a week for you? Do you see any other GUI developer here that is even willing to read or answer your posts here?
I have been known to change my mind many times in the past. In fact I always bend to reason. If you guys don't manage it, it is just because your arguments suck!
In this particular case, they are so dismal you even fail to make any point at all. There was not a single feature request in this trhread for me to refuse! It was asked why I used WinBoard, and the fact happens to be that I use it because it is open source, so that I can change it. If that offends anyone here, that is his problem. You really expect me to refrain from answering such questions if I think the answer would hurt your sensitivities??? I have a much better idea: if you don't want to know, then don't ask!
Perhaps this would be a good question for you all to ponder about: do you know any GUI (commercial or otherwise) which gives you a better deal than take-it-or-leave-it? If you BUY Chessbase or Shredder, can you then bother them with unlimited feature requests that they will implement for you within a week for you? Do you see any other GUI developer here that is even willing to read or answer your posts here?
> Perhaps this would be a good question for you all to ponder about: do you know any GUI (commercial or otherwise) which gives you a better deal than take-it-or-leave-it?
Tarrasch GUI!
(and even Scid Vs PC)
> If you BUY Chessbase or Shredder, can you then bother them with unlimited feature requests that they will implement for you within a week for you?
Don't need to implement much in the Shredder GUI because it already works so well!
Shredder does almost do nothing what I want. Mind you, I am not talking about that I don't like how it does things, but about things being absolutely impossible, no matter how cumbersome the way to achieve it. Is it even able to run WinBoard engines?
I don't know Tarrasch GUI very well, but I thought it was a very rudimentary GUI in a very early stage of development. So indeed, take-it-or-leave-it in such a state would not be a viable policy. So yes, there are some others, but it is not common.
I don't know Tarrasch GUI very well, but I thought it was a very rudimentary GUI in a very early stage of development. So indeed, take-it-or-leave-it in such a state would not be a viable policy. So yes, there are some others, but it is not common.
> Is it even able to run WinBoard engines?
Yes, when installing them tell Shredder that it's a Winboard engine.
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
This won't work as Shredder uses a crappy WB adapter as Chessbase did.
You need to install all WB engines with Odd Gunnar Malins WB2UCI adapter otherwise
all WB tests under Shredder are meaningless...
Guenther
You need to install all WB engines with Odd Gunnar Malins WB2UCI adapter otherwise
all WB tests under Shredder are meaningless...
Guenther
> Yes, when installing them tell Shredder that it's a Winboard engine.
Ah, so if you install Gaviota WB and tell Shredder it is a WinBoard engine, you can set its hash-table size, its tablebase path etc. from the engine configure menu? Have you really tried that?
> you can set its hash-table size, its tablebase path etc. from the engine configure menu?
No, only UCI engines can be configured.
>> you can set its hash-table size, its tablebase path etc. from the engine configure menu?
> No, only UCI engines can be configured.
That has not been true for a long time. Winboard/Xboard engines can be configured:
http://sites.google.com/site/gaviotachessengine/Home/configuration
Gaviota is both, xboard and UCI, but I think that the xboard protocol is even better in this respect.
Miguel
I meant under Shredder Classic, even, when a Winboard engine is loaded the engine configuration menu is greyed out:
The engine still works fine, though, for instance, Crafty comes with a .rc file so the user can configure it without needing GUI intervention.
The engine still works fine, though, for instance, Crafty comes with a .rc file so the user can configure it without needing GUI intervention.
Well, having to edit files bcause the GUI refuses to do its job is not what I consider 'user friendly'. And not all engines have ini files. Try to run Fairy-Max, and set its resign threshold. (Or its hash-table size, for that matter.)
So a good educational experience for some here would be the following:
As a paying customer, complain about the fact that Shredder Classic has broken support for WinBoard engines, and request that it would be fixed. (A quite reasonable request, methinks. It is not even a feature request, it is a plain bugfix...) Then count the number of days until you receive the update.
And in the mean time, do not bother me with crap about Shredder being user-friendly, or giving better than take-it-or-leave-it support.
So a good educational experience for some here would be the following:
As a paying customer, complain about the fact that Shredder Classic has broken support for WinBoard engines, and request that it would be fixed. (A quite reasonable request, methinks. It is not even a feature request, it is a plain bugfix...) Then count the number of days until you receive the update.
And in the mean time, do not bother me with crap about Shredder being user-friendly, or giving better than take-it-or-leave-it support.
All top engines are UCI so that's all the support I need, though I haven't had problems using Winboard engines under Shredder Classic, as a last instance I can get them working via WB2UCI adapter.
Something I'd consider more important for improvement is storage of analysis so that I can finally ditch Bookup, though it would need to have support for having two chess boards, one for the game notation and one for the book, as I've found being able to examine the book while the engine remains analyzing the same position to be important.
Something I'd consider more important for improvement is storage of analysis so that I can finally ditch Bookup, though it would need to have support for having two chess boards, one for the game notation and one for the book, as I've found being able to examine the book while the engine remains analyzing the same position to be important.
Well, whether you are willing to put up with crappy software is not really relevant to the question if the software is crappy, and if the supplier is willing to fix it, or let you "take it or leave it"!
I still consider Winboard more crappy than Shredder Classic, though, otherwise I'd use Winboard instead.
Does Winboard have a "drag and drop" exclude move feature for UCI engines like Shredder Classic? Because this is a must have feature for analysis of games, much more important than having to deal with text files for Winboard engines (and if Winboard DOES feature that, I'm just very outdated on Winboard features...)
Does Winboard have a "drag and drop" exclude move feature for UCI engines like Shredder Classic? Because this is a must have feature for analysis of games, much more important than having to deal with text files for Winboard engines (and if Winboard DOES feature that, I'm just very outdated on Winboard features...)
> I still consider Winboard more crappy than Shredder Classic, though, otherwise I'd use Winboard instead.
That still doesn't have the slightest relevance for whether either of them is a take-it-or-leave-it deal...
> Does Winboard have a "drag and drop" exclude move feature for UCI engines like Shredder Classic?
Well, almost all variant engines are WB and don't support exclude-moves, so it doesn't really matter if that works or not, right? If you want to restrict your analysis to a limited set of moves, you can always just play them on the board, right?
I guess it is still not sufficiently clear to you that it is not a matter of 'having to deal with text files'. Fairy-Max has no text file for options. Can you set its hash-table size or resign threshold? But even much more fundamentally: WB protocol is not properly implemented. It uses a 'new' command on every move. For most engines this interrupts pondering, and clears the hash table, so that not only the effect of pondering is erased, but even the effect of the leftover help from the previous move. And some engines (which specify reuse=0) might not be able to handle it at all, and crash. It is totally broken, and there are no other work-arounds than using third-party software, like WB2UCI. Which, I must admit, I don't know how good it is, as I of course never used it. Does it allow you to set Fairy-Max' hash-table size or Resign Threshold? So there might be no existing work-around at all. Which means Shredder simply cannot do it.
I actually did consider move exclusion once, but I could not come up with a good idea for the interface. The problem is that the Shift key is already taken for entering variations, and I would like to reserve the Ctrl key for entering partial moves (to not break compatibility with the Alien Edition). And Alt cannot be used in combination with mouse actions, as it immediately let the menu bar grab focus. Otherwise I could have used playing the move with Alt pressed as a signal to exclude that move (which seemed a useful way to do it).
Another problem would of course be that it would require a protocol extension, as WinBoard protocol does not support anything like this at all. So considering the fact that most engines do not support this anyway, I put it on the back burner.
> If you want to restrict your analysis to a limited set of moves, you can always just play them on the board, right?
Wrong. The best methods of analysis rely on excluding moves to ask the engines for second choices, see this thread for some techniques:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=405296#pid405296
I'd like to challenge you to a correspondence game, in where you don't use exclude moves, and I do, and I'd expect to come up forward easily as I can't even imagine how would you go into analyzing positions without the feature, since MultiPV is way too slow.
This would show the high superiority of Shredder Classic for one single critical feature missing in Winboard! You can add other features to Winboard like auto-recognition and installation of recently released engines, but it won't matter if Winboard fails at the basics.
> Wrong. The best methods of analysis rely on excluding moves to ask the engines for second choices, see this thread for some techniques
Ah, so now you suddenly want the best method? Well, let me give you a hint. The best method for configuring WB engines in NOT editing ini files...
> This would show the high superiority of Shredder Classic for one single critical feature missing in Winboard!
Not really. I never do analysis. In fact none of my engines even supports analysis mode. So by your philosophy, it is in fact a completely useless feature.
So you can guess how low this ranks on my list of priorities. And especially when I have no clear idea how this should be best implemented I will happily put it on the back-burner.
> Not really. I never do analysis. In fact none of my engines even supports analysis mode.
That may explain why Winboard is crappy for analysis.
Oh, I am sure it does. Did I ever claim otherwise?
All I said is that for me the main attraction of WinBoard is that you can make it do anything you want. Well you want to do analysis, not I. So if it is crappy at that, it must be your fault.
And I guess there is also no point in having multiple engines analyse as long as this critical feature is still missing. That is good to know! So something useful came out of this discussion anyway. Now I won't make the mistake of spending any time on that.
All I said is that for me the main attraction of WinBoard is that you can make it do anything you want. Well you want to do analysis, not I. So if it is crappy at that, it must be your fault.
And I guess there is also no point in having multiple engines analyse as long as this critical feature is still missing. That is good to know! So something useful came out of this discussion anyway. Now I won't make the mistake of spending any time on that.
Yeah, I guess that was news for you.
The facts you were missing is that tomgdrums, the guy you've been discussing a lot with, uses the GUI for analysis. The guys that say "Shredder Classic is the most user-friendly GUI" use it for analysis. And most people that hang around this forum do it because Rybka it is a top engine for analysis.
So once and for all get rid of the idea that people don't use Winboard because they have prejudice against it, they don't do it because their main usage of them for a chess GUI is for analysis of chess positions.
The facts you were missing is that tomgdrums, the guy you've been discussing a lot with, uses the GUI for analysis. The guys that say "Shredder Classic is the most user-friendly GUI" use it for analysis. And most people that hang around this forum do it because Rybka it is a top engine for analysis.
So once and for all get rid of the idea that people don't use Winboard because they have prejudice against it, they don't do it because their main usage of them for a chess GUI is for analysis of chess positions.
> So once and for all get rid of the idea that people don't use Winboard because they have prejudice against it
I did not assume that at all. It is what he told me.
News is good. The only reason I post here is to collect new information on which features are in demand, for things I never do myself. But it is like pulling teeth... How simple would it have been to just say: "WinBoard is not good for analysis, because it does not support exclude-moves"? But did anyone say that? In stead people come with nonsense complaints, such as that it also does engine-engine matches, they are not able to understand the engine-install dialog, that it is a take-it-or-leave it deal, or just that it is no good because they hate it.
Skeptical as I am, I of course would like to verify if what you say hold up to scrutiny. So does this Tarrasch GUI actually support exclude-moves, and if so, in what way?
Btw, the claim with which you entered the thread, "only if you are a programmer", also misses the nail by a mile. Because there are plenty of programmers around in computer Chess that you could ask. You don't have to be a programmer to know which features you want. Of course, considering the way how you treat them, your chances to actually finding someone foolish enough to help you are close to zero. But who'se fault could that be?
> Of course, considering the way how you treat them, your chances to actually finding someone foolish enough to help you are close to zero.
I treat them, or I treat you? And I treat you like that for telling people they're lazy for not being programmers, and that ALL of them should become programmers to add to Winboard its features, when it's easier to use a GUI that already supports them.
I haven't used recent versions of Tarrasch GUI, but its programmer takes request for improvements regardless of if he, personally, is going to use the feature or not. He also doesn't go around calling other GUIs "crappy".
Well, the answer is in from the Tarrasch guy ( http://triplehappy.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/maintenance-release/#comments ). It seems your hypothesis about the all-important exclude-moves feature determining which GUI people prefer does not hold up to scrutiny. Tarrasch GUI does not have it at all. So this feature cannot be very important for Tomgdrums, if he thinks Tarrasch is the best for his needs. I would be surprised if he knew how to use it in Shredder, or even if he knew it existed there...
Your other remarks are completely off the mark. It was Guenther who used the word crappy in connection with Shredder and Chessbase, not me. I just said its WB-engine support was broken. It was you who called WinBoard "more crappy than Shredder". It was Tomgdrums who implied WinBoard was crappy. I just adapted to his terminology, to improve the chances he would be able to understand what I said. (Heaven knows we need all the help we can get there...) Can you point out where I said a particular GUI was crappy?
You are also just making up that I said everyone had to become a programmer and change WinBoard. I don't care a hoot whether others are programmer or change WinBoard. I only said that if they can't change it, it is there own fault. Whose fault would you say it is, then? Mine?
Your other remarks are completely off the mark. It was Guenther who used the word crappy in connection with Shredder and Chessbase, not me. I just said its WB-engine support was broken. It was you who called WinBoard "more crappy than Shredder". It was Tomgdrums who implied WinBoard was crappy. I just adapted to his terminology, to improve the chances he would be able to understand what I said. (Heaven knows we need all the help we can get there...) Can you point out where I said a particular GUI was crappy?
You are also just making up that I said everyone had to become a programmer and change WinBoard. I don't care a hoot whether others are programmer or change WinBoard. I only said that if they can't change it, it is there own fault. Whose fault would you say it is, then? Mine?
> It was Guenther who used the word crappy in connection with Shredder and Chessbase, not me.
I didn't know you were Guenther, please check this post:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=405293#pid405293
Did Guenther hack your account, or what happened? Because I see you're clearly calling it crappy software right there.
You mean this?
Revise your logic then! This statement is completely general
description of a user strategies for dealing with software support,
and does not imply anything about any piece of software in particular.
Your theatrics about acount hackingserve no other purpose tha to ridicule yourself...
> Well, whether you are willing to put up with crappy software
> is not really relevant to the question if the software is crappy,
> and if the supplier is willing to fix it, or let you "take it or leave it"!
Revise your logic then! This statement is completely general
description of a user strategies for dealing with software support,
and does not imply anything about any piece of software in particular.
Your theatrics about acount hackingserve no other purpose tha to ridicule yourself...
Hi Uly,
I admire your ability to continue the good fight against HG Muller.
He obviously lies, distorts facts and makes things up to suit his own needs.
He is not worth any energy at all.
I admire your ability to continue the good fight against HG Muller.
He obviously lies, distorts facts and makes things up to suit his own needs.
He is not worth any energy at all.
Ah, there we have our number-one troll again, squandering around his petty insults...
Unfortunately for you not every reader is a dim-wit, so they can value your statements for what they are, and there is no need for me to comment on the details.
Unfortunately for you not every reader is a dim-wit, so they can value your statements for what they are, and there is no need for me to comment on the details.
Muller is not like, worthy of disdain. He's a developer for Winboard, he likes winboard. Like all developers he is stubborn to implement certain features/designs. He is under no obligation to do so anyways, and even if he was most commercial software companies ignore the vast majority of user requests.
The fact that he is here making many helpful posts, and even listening to requests/criticisms is above and beyond the call of duty.
If you don't like Winboard, don't use it. If you don't like Muller then don't talk to him. In my opinion he is downright pleasant compared to bob/houdart/ and even Romstad/Dailey.
The fact that he is here making many helpful posts, and even listening to requests/criticisms is above and beyond the call of duty.
If you don't like Winboard, don't use it. If you don't like Muller then don't talk to him. In my opinion he is downright pleasant compared to bob/houdart/ and even Romstad/Dailey.
Fair enough, I guess I went overboard somewhere, but when he said that "software that doesn't do its job and have users having to edit text files to change the settings of Winboard engines, is crappy software", and Shredder does that, it's clear he's calling Shredder Classic crappy software.
I actually don't think Winboard is crappy, I praised it in the first post by saying it's "the most lightweight and fastest gui", but I didn't like how he called all non-programmer lazy. I mean, I find making graphics very easy to do, am I going to call all people that aren't graphic developers lazy?"
At least this discussion was effective as it's clear he doesn't care about the analysis capabilities of the GUI, because he doesn't do analysis.
I actually don't think Winboard is crappy, I praised it in the first post by saying it's "the most lightweight and fastest gui", but I didn't like how he called all non-programmer lazy. I mean, I find making graphics very easy to do, am I going to call all people that aren't graphic developers lazy?"
At least this discussion was effective as it's clear he doesn't care about the analysis capabilities of the GUI, because he doesn't do analysis.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill