Test versions / private versions wanted for testing purposes

[Tony Thomas]

What is wrong with being on a rating list. Yes, the programmer does have a choice, he can keep the engine private. If you (the programmer) want to be on the top you (he/she) have to work hard, and also you (he/she) have to be a good programmer. Then again for most people chess is a hobby, have some sportsman spirit daniel. Dont attack a rating list because your engine is doing bad, your engine seem to perform bad under blitz conditions. However, under Leo's conditions your engine is quite a charmer, it made it up to the second division.

eh ?

I'm not talking about my engine. My engine supports UCI and WB2 protocols.

Best,
Daniel

Why do you think that anyone would waste half a day testing a computer chess program if the programmer can add a protocol such as WB in matter of minutes? Yes, they would test it, if it was one of the strongest programs in the world. To most people strength is the reason for testing most of the programs, I dont seem to care too much about strength but ease of use is one thing that I look for.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Why do you think that anyone would waste half a day testing a computer chess program if the programmer can add a protocol such as WB in matter of minutes? Yes, they would test it, if it was one of the strongest programs in the world. To most people strength is the reason for testing most of the programs, I dont seem to care too much about strength but ease of use is one thing that I look for.

Well, you have a wrong point of view.

Protocols are needed and should be used and supported by everybody. It makes a lot of things easier.
But the protocols was designed to help the programmer in the main case. It was never designed for testing. Today, we're all benefit from the protocols, but you should never forget the past.

So, protocols are usefull, but they should never control the market/buisness (hoppy view) of the engine world.

If a programmer choosed to go for a own GUI, however the reasons are, its a penalty for him today, because his engine will be not tested.

I understand good reasons like Martin wrote. That is ok for me. But just to say add a support or go home is wrong.

See also my comments here: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 21&t=13054


"...waste half a day testing..."

You show no respect for a programmer work. That's also a big problem in this community. But that's another story.


Best,
Daniel

[Volker Pittlik]

...
You show no respect for a programmer work. That's also a big problem in this community....

Das ist ja gut zu wissen. Da sich mir bis jetzt der Sinn dieser Debatte nicht ganz erschliesst -vor allem nicht die Hitze des Gefechts- würde ich es begruessen, wenn die Diskussion an den Orten weiter geführt wird, auf die dauernd verwiesen wird.

[Jim Ablett]

Hi Tony,

Why do you think that anyone would waste half a day testing a computer chess program if the programmer can add a protocol such as WB in matter of minutes?

Yes, you can add a protocol in a matter of minutes, but it can take months
of hard work to get it working perfectly bug-free.

Jim.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

...
You show no respect for a programmer work. That's also a big problem in this community....

Das ist ja gut zu wissen. Da sich mir bis jetzt der Sinn dieser Debatte nicht ganz erschliesst -vor allem nicht die Hitze des Gefechts- würde ich es begruessen, wenn die Diskussion an den Orten weiter geführt wird, auf die dauernd verwiesen wird.

Hallo Volker,

da stimme ich dir zu. Von meiner Seite ist die Debatte allerdings auch beendet. Ob es was gebracht hat , wird sich zeigen oder auch nicht.

Ja, mein Englisch lässt leider zuweilen sehr zu wünschen übrig. Sodass ich mich nicht so ausdrücken kann wie ich es eigendlich möchte. Also versuche ich ein schärferen Ton um es auf jeden Fall verständlich rüberzubringen. Ist vielleicht nicht immer richtig.

Gruß
Daniel

[Andres Valverde]

Hi Tony,

Yes, you can add a protocol in a matter of minutes, but it can take months
of hard work to get it working perfectly bug-free.

Jim.

Indeed!

[Martin Thoresen]

It seems that my original question/request has stirred up some kind of on-going dwelling discussion.

For what it's worth, I say thanks to those who stood up for me in here.

Best Regards,
Martin Thoresen