Pikochess is a practically dead and obsolete project ?

[WOT4441 WOT]

Picochess has long felt like a stalled project. It's a classic case of hobbyist software where the developers' enthusiasm has waned and the code has become too complex for new developers to bother with patching.

Lack of a stable maintainer: The main Picochess GitHub repository (often associated with Jean-Francois Romang and later others) rarely sees significant functional updates. Most "new" versions are simply engine packages slapped onto an old, broken core.

Technical debt: The Picochess architecture relies on solutions that are simply obsolete in today's Raspberry Pi world (new OS versions, changes to Bluetooth support). Fixing one thing usually breaks two others. Alternatives have eaten it up: If you have a DGT, Millennium, or Certabo board, the community has moved to more modern solutions, such as:

ChessConnect (a browser plugin that connects your board directly to Lichess/Chess.com).

WhitePawn (a great mobile app that supports most boards via Bluetooth).

Graham's Drivers for Windows – ugly, but always works with any chess program.

Picochess 4.2.3 is largely a "zombie" – it's supposedly there, you can download a ready-made SD card image, but if something doesn't work out of the box, you're on your own.

And many other free programs available for Windows and Linux.

Am I right ?

Piter

[Johan Sjöblom]

Not quite. Start by checking the readme in the fork I am maintaining. We have modernized pico to be used on any Linux and the latest Pi OS Trixie. All libraries are up to date and its using the latest Python. It can be installed by using stock SD cards etc…

Check the amounts of commits, issue and PR activity in https://github.com/JohanSjoblom/picochess

The purpose of pico is not to play on lichess, as you said, plenty of other options there. But yes, I do have a day job as a professional development manager. This is just a hobby.

— Johan

[DJ Dekker]

Hi Piter,

I noticed your post title, though it’s a bit ironic to label the project ‘practically dead’ while misspelling the name as ‘Pikochess’. I’ve been a part of this community since 2014 and I don’t recall seeing your name come up in our discussions before. It’s a bit unusual to see such a definitive obituary from someone who hasn’t engaged with us here previously. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Regarding the alternatives you mentioned like ChessConnect, WhitePawn and others: the chess landscape has certainly grown and everyone is free to choose the software that best fits their personal workflow and preferences. If those tools work better for your specific needs, that is perfectly fine. The goal is for us all to enjoy our chess boards.

However, the reason this community has persisted as long as it has isn’t just about the code; it’s about the people. In this group, we are usually quite quick to help each other troubleshoot when hardware or OS updates break things.

That leads me to wonder: what exactly are you hoping to achieve with your post? If your goal is simply to label the project a ‘zombie’ from the sidelines, please know that doesn’t hold much weight with those of us who have been actively contributing here for years. We prefer to focus our energy on development and supporting users who are actually participating in the community.

Greetings,

DJ

[Dirk]

I strongly agree with DJ.

What makes this post particularly misleading is the timing. Claiming that PicoChess is “dead” or a “zombie project” while some of the most significant development work in years is actively happening right now — including a major GUI overhaul and ongoing architectural improvements — says more about the perspective of the author than about the state of the project itself.

It’s perfectly fine to prefer different tools or to move on to other solutions. But presenting personal conclusions as if they were an objective verdict on the project is simply not accurate and keeps me also wonder what the purpose of this post should be!? (Ah no  - I guess we all know ;-)

Dirk

[WOT4441 WOT]

Hi all,

Thank you for the responses and for providing additional context.

First of all, I would like to clarify that I did not intend to offend, insult, or disrespect anyone with my previous message. It was not meant as a personal criticism of the developers or the community. My comments reflected only my outside impression as a user looking at the current state of the project.

After reading the replies, I think my original wording (“practically dead” / “zombie project”) was too strong and not fully accurate. A project cannot reasonably be described that way if there is still active maintenance, recent commits, issue handling, modernization work, and users actively supporting one another.

What I was trying to describe was something different: from the perspective of an outside or returning user, PicoChess can appear fragmented. There is the historical/main project name, newer maintained forks, different installation paths, and multiple alternatives now available for electronic chess boards. For someone looking in from the outside, it is not always immediately clear which version is the current recommended one.

Johan’s clarification about the maintained fork, updated libraries, newer Python versions, and compatibility with current Linux / Raspberry Pi systems is important and directly addresses several of the concerns I mentioned.

I also agree with the broader point raised by DJ and Dirk: open-source projects are not measured only by visibility or noise level, but also by the people continuing development, testing, support, and long-term commitment.

So a more accurate summary would be:

PicoChess is not dead. It is an evolving community-driven project that has moved beyond the old perception many people may still have, even if from the outside its structure may seem less clear than commercial or centrally managed software.

I appreciate the work of everyone contributing their time to it.

Regards,
Piter