Author: pavel
Date: 18:45:49 05/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 2002 at 21:24:48, Ron Langeveld wrote: >On May 31, 2002 at 18:41:41, pavel wrote: > >>On May 31, 2002 at 18:27:58, Ron Langeveld wrote: >> >>>On May 31, 2002 at 06:50:56, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>For me, the experiment is over. Hiarcs does not look especially great at higher >>>>time controls. Even if it would win a match like this (although it is looking a >>>>bit doubtful) it is clear that it does not excell at this time allowance. >>>> Maybe at an hour per move it would, but the indications for that are also >>>>nothing special, as this is not showing any movement in that direction either. >>>> >>>>So, in spite of the one or two brilliances which Hiarcs 8.0 might be capable >>>>of, as written about in Uniaks article, I don't know if I want to buy it for >>>>that alone. >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>>Too bad you are only looking at "statistics" from 5 (?) games instead of using >>>your own knowledge of chess in order to evaluate what Hiarcs' strongpoints are. >>>Imho it is not the tournament book, because that really sucks, so for starters >>>it should have been replaced. >> >> >>According to the hiarcs8 team the tournament book is the best choice, so I dont >>see any reason not to believe them. > >I can imagine why they say that, because it takes a lot of time to make a tuned >book. My point however is that I urge people to take a closer look at the >mainlines of this tournament book and compare it with current theory mainlines. >My opnion is that the tournament book is not ambitious enough in the sense that >it avoids critical lines, and the reason why is just a guessing game. Maybe >chosing sidelines, accepting a lesser position compared to critical lines, is a >way to save time in the huge task of completing an "allround" book. Remember >that some of the better bookmakers have years of experience to benefit from, and >there is no easy way to catch up; just hard work. Again, avoiding the mainlines >as an alternative is, imho, very counterproductive for Hiarcs. I even think that >using no book at all is better than using the tournament book, if it weren't for >the increased risk of repeated losses. As a last note: I noticed that in chosing >a lesser alternative move Hiarcs, most of the times does not agree with the >bookmakers decision. This indicates that the book is not "tuned" at all. I don't >have more to say on this topic. These are my observations, and if anybody cares, >they should take a closer look themselves and draw their own conclusions. I am yet so a game where hiarcs actually lost due to bad line in the tournament book. Not that there isnt, but I dont think its as bad as you might think it is. pavs
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.