The promised Rybka 3 bugfixes are on the way!

[Roger Brown]

I think you will find that free software like Arena and Winboard is much more popular with serious testers

Don't forget ChessGUI!

Sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that you think that
free guis are better than Chessbase or Aquarium. There is
a team developing Chessbase and aquarium
professionally.
I think the work done by free guis deserve my respect,
they are dedicated people who do.

Hello Paulo Soare,

I would like this discussion, which re-occurs ever so often, to be taken out of the realm of belief and put on some solid footing.

What makes a gui good or better?

What is a gui used for?

What features does Chessbase (I cannot speak to Aquarium) have that Arena or ChessGUI lack? The primary one is that proprietary Chessbase gui engines cannot be used in them but in this regards the players in that arena (pun intended) are shrinking. Those engines are now Fritz, Nimzo and the older Shredder and Hiarcs engines.

I am deliberately leaving out Winboard from this discussion even though that gui is superior to most in my opinion for reasons I am perfectly willing to go into if challenged.



Arena is sexy (yes I know this is a G rated forum but it is sexy) and very useful. ChessGUI is developed by the second by a developer who attempts to correct every bug and include any reasonable (and unreasonable ones too, I have asked!) feature.

Both correctly and natively support the Winboard and UCI protocols which means that 99% of the engines in existence can be used in them.

Oh, and Xboard natively supports Linux users, a seemingly forgotten class....



Yes, I would like to know what is behind this belief that Chessbase guis are necessarily better because they are developed by professional programmers. Amateur does not mean second rate.

H.G. Muller, Matthias Gemuh and Martin Blume (to name only three - the database side includes Pascal Georges with Scid) are really good programmers who produce a first class product and they respond to their users comments and critiques. Their guis are therefore always improving, adding more features, becoming more useful.

For instance, the next Arena will incorporate H.G.'s extension to the WB2 protocol as well as support the Gaviota TB's as Winboard currently does.

Before anyone asks, the above is a deduction based on recent posts by prominent members of the Arena team here on Talkchess....

Right now, ChessGUI supports the Gaviota TB's and the epd processing capabilities have been expanded.

Let's hear the arguments!

Later.

[Graham Banks]

I think you will find that free software like Arena and Winboard is much more popular with serious testers

Don't forget ChessGUI!

Sorry, but it's hard for me to believe that you think that
free guis are better than Chessbase or Aquarium. There is
a team developing Chessbase and aquarium
professionally.
I think the work done by free guis deserve my respect,
they are dedicated people who do.

In my opinion, the Chessbase GUIs are still the best. However, you can only run one Chessbase GUI on a given computer. If I want to run two GUIs simultaneously, I prefer ChessGUI as the second.

A point to note is that you could run three or more ChessGUIs simultaneously without problems on the one computer because it doesn't install into the Windows registry.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Roger Brown]

In my opinion, the Chessbase GUIs are still the best.

Hello Graham,

May I ask what informs this opinion? I am not in any way challenging your right to believe as you do but I would like to hear why you hold this opinion.

However, you can only run one Chessbase GUI on a given computer. If I want to run two GUIs simultaneously, I prefer ChessGUI as the second.

A point to note is that you could run three or more ChessGUIs simultaneously without problems on the one computer because it doesn't install into the Windows registry.

In this age of computers with at least two processors, isn't this significant? Doesn't it have implications for numbers of tournaments per machine?

Not that I expect it will matter but Winboard also has this advantage.

Later.

[hgm]

Aquarium or Chessbase GUIs are no match for WinBoard. They are developed by people that are merely professional programmers. That is, they only work for as much as they are payed, and they can only be payed from the proceeds available from the sales of what they produce. They are no match for me, as I can afford to work 16 hours a day for unlimited periods of time on improving WinBoard, which was already very good even before I started working on it. Retired from a career as computational physicist I do not consider my programming skills at 'amateur level', or, in fact, second to that of any professional programmer.

So! Eat that!

[Graham Banks]

In my opinion, the Chessbase GUIs are still the best.

Hello Graham,

May I ask what informs this opinion? I am not in any way challenging your right to believe as you do but I would like to hear why you hold this opinion.

However, you can only run one Chessbase GUI on a given computer. If I want to run two GUIs simultaneously, I prefer ChessGUI as the second.

A point to note is that you could run three or more ChessGUIs simultaneously without problems on the one computer because it doesn't install into the Windows registry.

In this age of computers with at least two processors, isn't this significant? Doesn't it have implications for numbers of tournaments per machine?

Not that I expect it will matter but Winboard also has this advantage.

Later.

Hi Roger,

the Chessbase GUIS offer a wider range of tournament options than other GUIs currently do, although some of the others are closing the gap in this regard.
The installation of engines and retention of parameters seems less troublesome than with some other GUIs.

I prefer to use the Chessbase and ChessGUI GUIs simply because, apart from the other features that I like for engine v engine testing, there is the option for tablebase adjudication of games.
Whilst this is not everybody's cup of tea, I'm blowed if I'm going to waste CPU time seeing KR v KR type positions play out to a 50 move draw. With blitxz time controls this would not be so much of a concern, but at slower time controls it is.

I've also found less problems in general with these two GUIs than with others.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Roger Brown]

Aquarium or Chessbase GUIs are no match for WinBoard. They are developed by people that are merely professional programmers. That is, they only work for as much as they are payed, and they can only be payed from the proceeds available from the sales of what they produce. They are no match for me, as I can afford to work 16 hours a day for unlimited periods of time on improving WinBoard, which was already very good even before I started working on it. Retired from a career as computational physicist I do not consider my programming skills at 'amateur level', or, in fact, second to that of any professional programmer.

So! Eat that!

AMEN!

[hgm]

[..., I'm blowed if I'm going to waste CPU time seeing KR v KR type positions play out to a 50 move draw.

Note that in WinBoard this is taken care of by the option 'adjudicate trivial draws'.

The advantage of this approach over tablebase adjudication is that it will not distort the ratings of engines that really do not know how to win certain difficult-to-win won end-games, like KBNK or KQKR.

[AdminX]

They are no match for me, as I can afford to work 16 hours a day for unlimited periods of time on improving WinBoard

So! Eat that!

Okay Spartacus!

[Roger Brown]

Hi Roger,

the Chessbase GUIS offer a wider range of tournament options than other GUIs currently do, although some of the others are closing the gap in this regard.

Hello Graham,

Again I am leaving Winboard out of this discussion because although Winboard can be harnessed by any of a number of tournament managers some persons consider this too much of a burden...

Which tournament options are not covered by Arena or ChessGUI?

The installation of engines and retention of parameters seems less troublesome than with some other GUIs.

There are so many ways to install an engine and Arena and ChessGUi have easy procedures to me.

I prefer to use the Chessbase and ChessGUI GUIs simply because, apart from the other features that I like for engine v engine testing, there is the option for tablebase adjudication of games.

Any modern gui should offer this feature. Winboard does.

Heh, heh.

Whilst this is not everybody's cup of tea, I'm blowed if I'm going to waste CPU time seeing KR v KR type positions play out to a 50 move draw. With blitxz time controls this would not be so much of a concern, but at slower time controls it is.

I can imagine...

I've also found less problems in general with these two GUIs than with others.

Arghhhhhh, the vagueness again!

In my case I have installed and used just about every popular chess gui. I gave up on Chessbase when it became clear that I was really buying an improved engine and the same old, same old.

Christopher Conkie once published a list (or otherwise stated) of how many Chessbase products he had and initially I laughed at him until I checked my collection.

I felt resentment that I was purchasing this gui which hardly changed (certainly very little change in terms of its handling of engine tournaments) merely to obtain the engine which is what I wanted.

Later.

[tomgdrums]

Hi Roger,

the Chessbase GUIS offer a wider range of tournament options than other GUIs currently do, although some of the others are closing the gap in this regard.

Hello Graham,

Again I am leaving Winboard out of this discussion because although Winboard can be harnessed by any of a number of tournament managers some persons consider this too much of a burden...

Which tournament options are not covered by Arena or ChessGUI?

The installation of engines and retention of parameters seems less troublesome than with some other GUIs.

There are so many ways to install an engine and Arena and ChessGUi have easy procedures to me.

I prefer to use the Chessbase and ChessGUI GUIs simply because, apart from the other features that I like for engine v engine testing, there is the option for tablebase adjudication of games.

Any modern gui should offer this feature. Winboard does.

Heh, heh.

Whilst this is not everybody's cup of tea, I'm blowed if I'm going to waste CPU time seeing KR v KR type positions play out to a 50 move draw. With blitxz time controls this would not be so much of a concern, but at slower time controls it is.

I can imagine...

I've also found less problems in general with these two GUIs than with others.

Arghhhhhh, the vagueness again!

In my case I have installed and used just about every popular chess gui. I gave up on Chessbase when it became clear that I was really buying an improved engine and the same old, same old.

Christopher Conkie once published a list (or otherwise stated) of how many Chessbase products he had and initially I laughed at him until I checked my collection.

I felt resentment that I was purchasing this gui which hardly changed (certainly very little change in terms of its handling of engine tournaments) merely to obtain the engine which is what I wanted.

Later.

I really think it all lies with what each user likes, wants and feels comfortable with. Choice is a good thing.

I have tried Arena and found it not to my liking because I really want the GUI for analysis purposes and Arena was not comfortable to me. But it IS comfortable to others. I was NOT a big chessbase fan until I recently purchased Chessbase 2009 and have found it really easy to work with for annotation and database management.

I personally love the Shredder GUI best! But that is my opinion and only my opinion.

I have found that for my use the commercial chess products are generally better for what I want.

But I do love Open Office!!

It seems we should be happy for these choices instead of spending time trying to convince others that our choice is the best one.