Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:02:54 12/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
I have no doubt personally, which is why it is on my Christmas MUST BUY list.
And believe me, I have bought every Hiarcs since Hiarcs 6 (including Hiarcs 7
DOS and 7.32). I remember it wasn't more than a few months (less than 6) after
Hiarcs 5 had been released that Enrique Irazoquoi began publishing
mouth-watering results and reviews of the new Hiarcs 6 Gamma (not beta and not
alpha) saying that Mark had made some kind of breakthrough and the performance
and playing result was mind boggling. He felt he *had* to release it soon,
despite the fact that he had only just released version 5. In order to not
alienate his customers, he offered those who had bought version 5 a significant
discount, judging it only fair. I'm not worried about its ability, and have
every intention of adding it to the stable.
Albert
>Hello Eduard,
>
>Please do not formulate an overall opinion so soon as to the capabilities of
>HIARCS 10. If you do, I can certainly promise you will be disappointed in your
>hasty decision at a later date.
>
>I realize you view the Online Masters 2005/2006 games as "important" but to
>Hiarcs, they are just 60+15 playchess server games like any others. I can post
>other 60+15 playchess server games played by HIARCS 10 where it has had
>commanding wins over Fritz 9 and Rybka 1.0 Beta 64-bit. However, even these
>games would be in the same criteria as the CSS Masters games you've posted --
>there are simply not enough games played to formulate an opinion one way or the
>other.
>
>It's been over two years since HIARCS 9 was released and we have made
>substantial progress since that time. Mark Uniacke, however, is not happy with
>simply increasing engine strength by 30-40 ELO and rushing a new version to the
>shelves. By those standards, HIARCS 10 could have been release mid-2004 with no
>problems.
>
>You may feel that because Harvey and I work with Mark directly on HIARCS,
>anything we say must be immediately discredited and chalked up to simple public
>relations and product promotion. You are very wrong with this thinking. This
>is a hobby for us -- we love computer chess and chess in general. Additionally,
>we do not receive any compensation for our work (which goes beyond simple beta
>testing or setting our computers to play matches.) Of course we have attachment
>to the engine based on the vast amount of time we've donated to further its
>development, but this does not mean we will intentionally misrepresent results
>or mislead the computer chess community in any way. It would be useless to do
>so anyway -- when the product is available on the market, such antics would be
>discovered and discredited immediately.
>
>I've been personally working with Mark for over five years and I can tell you
>that we seriously have to beat him over the head to convince him the engine is
>ready to be released. HIARCS 10 was delayed to Chessbase because of this same
>reason -- he was unhappy with one of the default parameters and refused to send
>the release engine until the problem was sufficiently corrected and verified by
>enough test results to be statistically relevant (in his mind, which could also
>be viewed as statistically exhausting.) Was this necessary? No. We were
>probably scrambling to get results for something that made a difference of .05
>ELO, but nevertheless, it is a perfect example of how relentless Mark is in
>regards to providing the absolute best to his customers and fans.
>
>Like Sandro, I am against quoting specific ELO improvements based on past
>nightmares in doing so, but I can honestly say that no reasonable ELO-minded
>customer will be upset at the increase over HIARCS 9 (not to mention the overall
>addition of knowledge and efficient king attacks.) I've been an active part of
>the computer chess community for 10+ years and if that has earned me any
>reputation whatsoever, I will gladly lay that on the line to back any claims I
>have made in this posting.
>
>So, sit back and wait for the results from CEGT, SSDF and of course Kurt, as
>well as the handful of other well respected independent testers that post their
>results here on CCC. I've seen more test results than you could ever imagine --
>I am quite confident as to the mark we will hit on the above-mentioned lists as
>well as the satisfaction we will bring to the customers of HIARCS 10.
>
>Respectfully yours,
>
>Enrico L. Carrisco
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.