Arena - the eternal question.

[mike angel]

Sorry HGM

but also i must say Winboard is so less comfortable for example when i try to do an engine-engine tournament with many engines, so i gave up very quickly - old Arena Gui is much more modern and more comfortable than the lastest Winboard. Winboards comfort seems to come from beyond last worldwar.

With all due respect:

You should think more about that and do something against it so many will give Winboard a second try. After done that you are allowed to throw mud on other Gui .... In the meantime please dont do that.

[hgm]

Well, I never have any problems running tournaments in WinBoard. Just click the engines I want to participate, or recall a previous tourney with my standard gauntlet with the file-browse dialog, OK it, and it runs.

If it was much more complicated for you, it sounds like you must have done something seriously wrong. It seems unlikely that in Arena one can start a tournament without specifying the desired participants at least once...

I don't understand the part about 'mud slinging'. You consider it a crime to share an informed opinion on something one has expertise in, and call that 'mud slinging'? I also don't understand what the alleged quality of WinBoard has to do with it. You don't think I am allowed to have an opinion on Arena unless I write a GUI that you like better first?

If so, can I ask you what GUI you wrote that others consider superior to Arena that qualifies you to voice an opinion about it? Or don't you subject yourself to the same standards as others???

Further note it wasn't me who started criticising other GUIs in this thread, mentioning their alledged defects. It was Mr. Diosi. I am just a tad better than him at laying my fingers on the sore spots! But were where you to accuse him of 'mud slinging' when he did that? Or is it OK to criticise WinBoard, but 'mud slinging' to criticise Arena?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Well, I never have any problems running tournaments in WinBoard. Just click the engines I want to participate, or recall a previous tourney with my standard gauntlet iwit the file-browse dialog, OK it, and it runs.

If it is much more complicated for you, it dounds you did something seriously wrong. It seems unlikely that in Arena one can start a tournament without specifying the participants at least once...

I don't understand the part about 'mud slinging'. You consider it a crime to share an informed opinion on something one has expertise in, and call that 'mud slinging'? I also don't understand what the alleged quality of WinBoard has to do with it. You don't think I am allowed to have an opinion on Arena unless I write a GUI that you like better first?

If so, can I ask you what GUI you wrote that others consider superior to Arena that qualifies you to voice an opinion about it? Or don't you subject yourself to the same standards as others???

Note it wasn't me who started criticising other GUIs in this thread, mentioningtheir alledged defects. I am just better at laying my fingers on the sore spots!

HGM,
How dare you offer us a WWII software,ah

Your software will be reported to the moderators regards,
Dr.D

[hgm]

Well, as you probably know from his earlier outbursts, Mr. Diosi actually has a very original explanation for that, very much related to WWII...

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Well, as you probably know from his earlier outbursts, Mr. Diosi actually has a very original explanation for that, very much related to WWII...

Now seriously,Michael is a friend of mine but I do agree that the Arena is a dead project....

It had it's glory but no more me think regards,
Dr.D

[carldaman]

the only fact is that you are misinformed, reading Russian sources again, didn't you learn by now...?

Michael Diosi
http://www.playwitharena.com

Michael,
if you could just add 5-men tablebase adjudication to Arena, that alone may be good enough and worth a new release.

Thanks,
CL

[MrEdCollins]

* The toolbar with pictograms is ugly, and seems superfluous next to the menu bar. The pictograms on it are completely cryptic, making it even unhelpful to the analphabetic / dydlectic user.
* It is not clear why the clock times seem to appear twice (above and below the board, as right to the board.
* Displaying the engine author names always in plain view seems annoying. Most people would not be interested at all to know who wrote the engine, and people that do would know after the first time. This is information you would typically want to see in an 'about box' available on user request.
* It is a complete mystery to me why anyone would want to have a FEN in view next to the opening name.
* It strikes me as odd the movelist is not using SAN, but contains from-squares. For no apparent reason the font there is of larger size than for the engine PVs, hurting the compactness, and thus visibility of the game history (e.g. necessitating to break the PV annotations into two lines, further reducing the visibility window).
* The cross-hatched boundary on g5 and g7 seems to be covering part of the piece image inside the square, which is rather ugly. This kind of move highlighting seems superfluous anyway in the presence of the arrow.
* That there is a second toolbar below the board, while there already is one at the top of the window, is strange. That it is situated between the name of the white player and the board edge even stranger. Also here some of the pictograms are cryptic. That there are both buttons with text as well as pictograms is inconsistent.
* The PV of Comet is printed in long algebraic, rather than SAN.
* I would not normally be interested to know whether an anlyzing engine is WB or UCI, or how many MB its memory footprint is. I guess this is only put there because there was space, and the design philosophy seems to consider empty space a sin. Which is exactly what causes the impression of overcrowding. Empty space is actually a very important design ingredient.

Thank you for verbalizing some of the points I've known for years. I've never ever liked Arena. But I do understand many people do, which is fine with me.

For years and years and years WinBoard was my favorite interface. And I was familiar with most all of them. One of its features was its uncluttered overall display.

Lately, however, I seem to be using Scid vs. PC almost exclusively.

I hope I don't mess up this topic with the size of this image. It shows Scid vs. PC displaying a position from a tournament game of mine, at this weekend's American Open.

I see a few things I would change, but overall I'm very happy with the way the information is presented.

[gerold]

Nice.

However i have been using
Arena for 10years. I used them all but still
prefer Arena. I like the board , different selection
of pieces , etc. Best i have found. Suits me fine.

Best,
Gerold.

[Sylwy]

So I use both regularly. When you get familiar with them you can love them both. Just think of how many women you have loved in your life and they were very different, surely...

Hi Gabor !

Basically you are right !
Below are both Arena & Winboarda - on the shore of a bad - admiring their qualities. Not a single wave of jealousy, of course !
Touching image !



SilvianR

[GenoM]

Nice.

However i have been using
Arena for 10years. I used them all but still
prefer Arena. I like the board , different selection
of pieces , etc. Best i have found. Suits me fine.

Best,
Gerold.

+1