make a cluster of all of the dbs
I don't know if there is one.
When Shane (original developer) disappeared, I think soon after releasing 3.6.1, development stalled. Some time later people took over the project and there were some disagreements and SCID was forked into ChessDB (project died soon after). Then some years later it was forked again into SCID vs PC/Mac, that was intended to be an usability and bug-fix fork.
No idea what the major differences are, other than the interface ones. Maybe one can figure out something from the changelogs:
SCID vs PC: scidvspc.sourceforge.net/#toc7
SCID: sourceforge.net/p/scid/code/ci/master/tree/ChangeLog
There is also Scidb, a complete rewrite. Quite promising one, could handle CBH databases. But it hasn't been developed for a few years now. No windows builds.
While SCID and variants (GPL2/open source) are Tcl/Tk based, ChessX (GPL2/open source) is a Qt application. So a modern-looking one. Some people like it, some hate it. I'm not a fan of the program when it comes to usability, but you would have to try it out yourself. It only handles PGNs. The original developer moved on to co-develop HIARCS Chess Explorer (proprietary/commercial), so project is maintained by other people now.
When Shane (original developer) disappeared, I think soon after releasing 3.6.1, development stalled. Some time later people took over the project and there were some disagreements and SCID was forked into ChessDB (project died soon after). Then some years later it was forked again into SCID vs PC/Mac, that was intended to be an usability and bug-fix fork.
No idea what the major differences are, other than the interface ones. Maybe one can figure out something from the changelogs:
SCID vs PC: scidvspc.sourceforge.net/#toc7
SCID: sourceforge.net/p/scid/code/ci/master/tree/ChangeLog
There is also Scidb, a complete rewrite. Quite promising one, could handle CBH databases. But it hasn't been developed for a few years now. No windows builds.
While SCID and variants (GPL2/open source) are Tcl/Tk based, ChessX (GPL2/open source) is a Qt application. So a modern-looking one. Some people like it, some hate it. I'm not a fan of the program when it comes to usability, but you would have to try it out yourself. It only handles PGNs. The original developer moved on to co-develop HIARCS Chess Explorer (proprietary/commercial), so project is maintained by other people now.
@rwmerrell Chess x isn't really that ideal to me. The move text is horrible and confusing. Had a hard time using it.
I am a happy SCID user since over 15 years, my current version is 4.7. Never felt the necessity to try out smthg else.
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-database-4?page=3#26
lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/chess-database-4?page=3#26
There is work being done on a new version of SCID (5.0.0), with a new database format that allows much more games/players/events etc. to be placed into a database. Currently, if you export the latest Chessbase Mega Database to PGN and try to import it into SCID, it won't work due to database limitations, but that should be fixed when SCID 5.0.0 comes out.
>Currently, if you export the latest Chessbase Mega Database to PGN and try to import it into SCID, it won't work due to database limitations, but that should be fixed when SCID 5.0.0 comes out.
Hmmm... I thought SCID4 format could handle around 16 million games (2^24-2, looks like they bumped it to four bytes in SCID5)?
There are other limitations for Event, Site, player names and why you would have issues with Lichess monthly database with the current format, even if you split the file (because of the Site tag).
Hmmm... I thought SCID4 format could handle around 16 million games (2^24-2, looks like they bumped it to four bytes in SCID5)?
There are other limitations for Event, Site, player names and why you would have issues with Lichess monthly database with the current format, even if you split the file (because of the Site tag).
@bufferunderrun said in #7:
> Hmmm... I thought SCID4 format could handle around 16 million games (2^24-2, looks like they bumped it to four bytes in SCID5)?
> There are other limitations for Event, Site, player names and why you would have issues with Lichess monthly database with the current format, even if you split the file (because of the Site tag).
Yes, you are correct that it is not the number of games in the Megabase that's the problem, but the player name/site limitations. Even so, it will be nice to have a database format that can hold more info, as there are features in SCID that simply aren't available in other chess database programs.
> Hmmm... I thought SCID4 format could handle around 16 million games (2^24-2, looks like they bumped it to four bytes in SCID5)?
> There are other limitations for Event, Site, player names and why you would have issues with Lichess monthly database with the current format, even if you split the file (because of the Site tag).
Yes, you are correct that it is not the number of games in the Megabase that's the problem, but the player name/site limitations. Even so, it will be nice to have a database format that can hold more info, as there are features in SCID that simply aren't available in other chess database programs.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.