Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 19:30:51 05/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 1999 at 21:25:14, Dave Gomboc wrote: >Here's a section of http://www.chessbase.com/products/engines/Hiarcs/index.html: > > Playing Characteristics > > At first glance, the Hiarcs engine is strikingly slow in terms of nodes > per second. Hiarcs calculates at roughly a tenth of Fritz' and Junior's > node speed. However the 'look-and-feel' of Hiarcs in practical analysis is > that of a very, very fast program. Its speed in solving tactical positions > is at least in the league of the fastest searchers, if not better. Its by a > >This claim, I can live with. People here seem to think Hiarcs is pretty good in >this department. > > far margin the strongest 1min-Blitz player in the world. But on the other > >But where does this audacious claim come from? Did somebody decide to test a >bunch of programs on ICC at 1 0? This claim doesn't even seem to be completely >testable: Ferret has won what, the last 3 blitz championships at the WMCCC? Two >of the last three, at least. But it's tough for anyone but Bruce to play a 1 >minute match between Hiarcs and Ferret, and as far as I know, Bruce hasn't >reported any results for such a match. > >If it really IS "by a far margin the strongest 1min-Blitz player in the world", >great!, congratulations... but saying it doesn't make it so: where's the >evidence? > > hand you immediately feel its extraordinarily profound chess knowledge in > the middle- and endgame. > > Hiarcs shows a highly attractive, strategical and goal-oriented playing > style which makes it an enjoyable opponent for humans. Mark Uniackes work > is more than a valuable enrichment for the world of chess programs since he > achieves supreme playing strength by a different paradigm. > >This is no different from claims made by other chess software professionals. So >what is the "different paradigm"? How is this testable? Hiarcs is not an >open-source software project. People blab about how CSTAL does it differently, >but it's not verifiable by third parties. No difference here. > >From the program description given to the ICCA for WCCC 1999: > > HIARCS searches around an order of magnitude less positions per second > (av. 18,000) than most of its competitors. However, it makes up for this > apparent slow speed by clever searching and accurate evaluation. HIARCS > uses many selective search extension heuristics to guide the search and > incorporates a sophisticated tapered search to resolve tactical > uncertainties while finding positionally beneficial lines. > >This description is more useful, thank you. However, I will not hesitate to >point out that one of the great things about the "sophisticated tapered search" >sentence is that it is concrete enough to give the impression that some >disclosure is being made, and abstract enough to allow every individual to have >their own interpretation of precisely what it means. <grin> > >Dave Dear Dave, I have Hiarcss 7 as well as REBEL 10. I can tell you that yes Hiarcs can be a bit slow - sometimes by minutes - but in complex middlegame positions it will make the better move! I personally feel that time is relevant but hold the proper analysis to be of even more importance. What good is it if a program plays faster but misses key moves? Therefore, I firmly believe Mark Unkacke is going in the right direction, for I would rather see a chess program play an intelligent game and lose on time than a fast program making a blunder and losing! This is of course just my opinion. Regards, Mel
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.