If you were ...

[AdminX]

If you were Ubisoft, Ripstone, or Chessbase for example and looking for a chess engine to license for use in your next chess software project to release. Who would you be contacting?

If I were the point man for Ubisoft or Ripstone, I think I would be trying to contact Jonathan Kreuzer (Slowchess). For Chessbase I think I would go with Andrew Grant (Ethereal)

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi,

I think such times are over.
Max. important is GUI development or to make chess programs weaker for new commercial chess computer products.

More humen-like-style can be interesting!

Jonathan or Andrew do great jobs in engine development. But all the other programmers made the same.
TOP-125 chess programs today are stronger as Magnus Carlsen.
So why we need Ethereal or SlowChess in new commercial products?

For us is important that we have a nice chess program with an aggressive playing style.
We don't need the best programs for commercial products because so many strong chess programs are freely available for all of us.

The commecials should do a bit more in devenlopments of GUI, not in looking to engine developments.
Better statistic features and much more important is to create nice chess computers.

100Mhz is enough for TOP-150 available chess programs and I am sure ... we all have fun undo end of life.

I await more interesting chess computers and much more interesting statistics features for commercial chess products. For new innovation people like to give money.

For engines the way the Ethereal programmer go I like, or the Chiron programmer go for many years, the Pedone programmer go. Engines and GUIs are today two completly different selections. A commercial company should not waste time in development of engines. This part is absolutely out for commercial products.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

What I like to say is ...
No chess engine programmer today need a commercial company!
Time is over since many years!

And the good known commercial companys should try to hold the computer chess flag with more innvoation in development of chess computer and in improvements for his own GUIs or in development of new techniques for things I can hold in my hand, not only chess computers.

Best
Frank

[Cornfed]

Hi,

I think such times are over.
Max. important is GUI development or to make chess programs weaker for new commercial chess computer products.

More humen-like-style can be interesting!

A commercial company should not waste time in development of engines. This part is absolutely out for commercial products.

+1

The 'engine development community' (what you mostly see here) often does not see the larger forest for their own personal grove of trees sometimes...believing that 'more elo is better'. Okay, 'it is'...BUT largely that only really matters these days among those who pit engines against engines and/or like to push engines along in proxy fights against others doing the same. This is the "I'm actually doing something - without using too much of my brain" age in which they live.

For the larger chess community, the fact has always been that a really good GUI which THEY can use for THEIR ends is what it is all about. Chessbase for example: Fritz is a really good GUI for what it is designed to do - and you can plug any ol' engine in it you want! It's largely just another revenue stream for the company these days. Me, I hardly ever use Fritz however because in this day and age (internet) you don't need an engine to play against. Who in their right mind would?? Chessbase16 is far better and easy to use for my chess needs and I use it every single day. For that, I use either my old Komodo 13.3 or one of the various 'SFishes' that are in the wild.

The point is, as long as an engine is a good one, which I chose is largely irrelevant...it is what I am able to do with it that counts. For that you need a well developed and stable GUI. Those are far harder to develop than the endless tweaking of engines parameters for a few elo here and there (NNUE aside), throwing it into the dark via countless bullet games to see if what you did made a fraction of a difference. One is for "programmers"...the other is for PROGRAMMERS. There really is a difference.

[MikeB]

If you were Ubisoft, Ripstone, or Chessbase for example and looking for a chess engine to license for use in your next chess software project to release. Who would you be contacting?

If I were the point man for Ubisoft or Ripstone, I think I would be trying to contact Jonathan Kreuzer (Slowchess). For Chessbase I think I would go with Andrew Grant (Ethereal)

The engine now is less important than the net since it is the net that dictates style of play. Right now the best net devloper , building the most interesting nets for human play is Dietrich Kappe. Hands down. For the complete package, engine and net, I would sign up Andrew Grant.

[mclane]

Does CB need a new product?!
I need no new engine, i have all engines,
and i would not pay for a buggy CB GUI.

I tell you what i would like to get:

Mchess UCI
ChessTiger UCI
ChessSystemTal UCI
Rebel UCI
Nimzo UCI
Wchess UCI
Socrates UCI
….

I would like to get my dos engine running under windows WITHOUT emulation as uci under any windowd GUI.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Mike,

seems so that Dietrich Kappe do here a lot of important work.
You are more the expert here but what I read about him or what other programmers give for information about him ... Dietrich know what he do is the opinion from persons I have contacts.

But please ...
Not forget ideas by the others? The SlowChess programmer is working with small nets and the engine produced a fantastic aggressive playing style and is very strong. I think with Stockfish, Booot and Pedone (now Revenge) and of course Wasp most aggressiveness. Ah ... Seer is on the way in this group and of course others.

Ethereal is important too!
Not all of the engines should produced the same style in mid-games with a lot of aggressiveness. Different playing styles are very important and Ethereal produced an own style with a lot of understandings in positional positions. Often in games vs. Wasp I understand nothing what Ethereal plays at first but 4-5 moves later I start to understand the very fine positional moves. Not easy to create such a style.

So many strong programmers, give us very nice software!!

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hello Cornfed,

Nibbler, Banksia, CuteChess ... new wonderful GUIs.
And all the older developments like Fritz or Arena, Shredder GUI are great and good to have.
I like ChessBase database GUI a lot.

But the point is that good known commercials develops things nobody need. New featues, nice for 1-time looking but no more. ChessBase and Fritz GUI have a lot of interesting features but many are ready to maybe 70%. In detail most of new features are not ready.

With the knowledge in programming, the possibilities hardware give us we can develops much more interesting things. I think the good and old chess computer times have a chance today if we can inspire the normal club player with all the available software and ideas we have. The chess computer community is very strong here!!

I like your comments in your message!

Ethereal or SlowChess for Fritz 18 or Fritz 29 ... uninteresting!
No engine programmer today need a commercial company for selling the own work (if a chess programmer like to do such things).

Example:
A new DGT-Pi clock is available (a simulation, not reality).
With a great display ... the engine programmer, offer his engine as standalone program (like Ethereal for an example) can support the idea and can give as second product ... an image for a new DGT-Pi clock with features that make Ethereal weaker ... interesting for self-playing for millions of chess-player in the World.

What GUI programmer do and what Engine programmers do are in my opinion today two different things.

But you know, we all know ...
Companys like to have the strongest engine in his own GUI-product. Companys like to give the information, we have the strongest GUI and the strongest engine. In times Stockfish is available no longer interesting. Exactly this is genial because GUI programmers can give his time for new ideas / innovation. Or better, we don't need a commercial company that offer a strong engine. We need commercial GUIs where are able to give us motivation, innovation and features we need. And things we can hold in our hands, pieces we can hold in our hands ... chess computers with new and interesting ideas.

Time is over for companies in selling engines for chess GUIs.

Best
Frank

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi there,

and tomorrow ...
Will be a great day for me ...

The Ethereal programmer offer a fischer.net for the update to version 13.25.
Such things I will see and I am happy as customer of chess engine programmers.

Sure, I will try out the fischer.net tomorrow and in the next week.
An order for the customers of Ethereal, comes from Ethereal chief Andrew.

GUI programmers have to work on other things!
Andrew do his job, I wish me that commercial GUI programmers will do his job in the future of computer chess without to looking what engines programmers do. Waste on time!

Best
Frank

Chessbase can offer Fritz 18 with Fritz 5 engine.
Should be more as enough.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Thorsten,

the problem with the older PC-programs like Socrates, MChess is the endgame and missed aggressiveness. In the last years the endgames are much more improved as the mid-games for TOP-Engines. Of course, all the programs you listed are great programs.

More interesting is to make current engines slower with NPS.

So, the produced style is more well-adjusted for the gaming phases.
Modern engines can produced better and very easy the human-like style older programs can't.

If you produced this one with Scorates ...
Mid-game = 2200 Elo
Late mid-game = 2100 Elo
Transformation into endgame = 1800 Elo
Endgame 1700 Elo

Have this nothing to do what club-players like to see.

To hold on older pc-programs or engines made no sense.
OK, from time to time I start the older engines on my system too.
But for self playing I like more modern programs.

I like to play vs. The King Performance because I can win with a short attack or in endgames. The chance is very high. You can make current, more modern software much weaker, like what the Wasp programmer do here. To play vs. Ethereal with 1500 real Elo or 2200 real Elo can be very interesting. To play a game "Wasp with 1600 Elo" vs. "Ethereal with 1600 Elo" can be very interesting for looking.

But more I like to play games vs. Wasp on DGT-Pi with 2200 Elo.
Much more as to play vs. TheKing Performace with 10% or 20%.

Games are clearly more interesting!

Best
Frank