Cute Chess 0.9.4 released

[PaulieD]

Not sure what that has to do with being 'lightweight', however. Wether the GUI uses up 1%, 5% or 50% of the time should not affect the tourney result in the slightest.

I used the term "lightweight" bacause this was the term Ilari used when referencing the cli vs the gui. So I was attemping to "relate" by speaking the same language.

[elcabesa]

I'm having some problem with cutechess gui and Vajolet.

I'm testing vajolet with cutechess gui and I get a lot of lost game due to disconnection. I can't reproduce it with cutechess-cli.

I'll try to make a better BUG report as soon as possibile after some investigation.

[hgm]

I used the term "lightweight" bacause this was the term Ilari used when referencing the cli vs the gui. So I was attemping to "relate" by speaking the same language.

I have no problem with the terminology. The point was why you would expect that it would make the slightest difference for the result of a tourney whether the GUI was light weight or heavy weight in this sense.

[PaulieD]

I have no problem with the terminology. The point was why you would expect that it would make the slightest difference for the result of a tourney whether the GUI was light weight or heavy weight in this sense.

Because with version 0.9.3 it was slower and more cumbersome which affected those same resuts.

[hgm]

But there was no change in the speed or CPU use between version 0.9.3 and 0.9.4, was there? Just fixing of bugs.

[PaulieD]

But there was no change in the speed or CPU use between version 0.9.3 and 0.9.4, was there? Just fixing of bugs.

Well, it would appear that one or more of those "fixes" fixed it

[hgm]

Fixed your tourney, yes. But did not affect the 'weight'. So what did your tourney result tell us about the weight?

[PaulieD]

Fixed your tourney, yes. But did not affect the 'weight'. So what did your tourney result tell us about the weight?

A couple of posts ago, you claimed that you understood why and how the term "weight" was used.
But now you are asking questions about the very same thing again?

I answered your question. I think my answer was easily understandable.
I don't want to litter this thread anymore with these semantics.
Understand it whatever way you choose to.
I am done responding about "weight".

[hgm]

Well, I understand how Ilari (and everyone else) uses it: something is 'light weight' if it consumes few resources (such as memory, CPU, disk space), and 'heavy weight' when it consumes a lot.

If you think it can ever mean something else, (as your last posting suggests), and used it that way, you should not be surprised if no one understands you...

[PaulieD]

Well, I understand how Ilari (and everyone else) uses it: something is 'light weight' if it consumes few resources (such as memory, CPU, disk space), and 'heavy weight' when it consumes a lot.

If you think it can ever mean something else, (as your last posting suggests), and used it that way, you should not be surprised if no one understands you...

That is my definition also...over and out.