Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Acquiring the Hiarcs 7.32 engine with Fritz 5.32 (or the reverse)

Author: Shep

Date: 00:30:30 08/06/99

Go up one level in this thread


On August 06, 1999 at 01:56:36, Steve Schooler wrote:

>Questions:
>
>1.  To experienced Hiarcs 7.32 users:  is the above excerpt for real?  I've
>never heard of "backward game analysis" before.  How/when is this used?

If you use "Analyze game" from your Fritz interface, it does just that: start
analysis at the final move of the game and then traverse the game tree
backwards.
THis feature is not specific to the engine (Hiarcs or Fritz) but only to the
user interface.

>2.  Rather than spending (approx.) $100 to acquire both, is it possible to
>economically get the advantages of both under one umbrella (i.e. Fritz 5.32 with
>the Hiarcs 7.32 search engine as an add-on, or the REVERSE)?  This question
>really has two parts:

Actually, Hiarcs come with the same user interface as Fritz.
So there is no difference if you
1) Run the Hiarcs engine in Fritz or
2) Run the Fritz engine in Hiarcs or
3) Run either engine with the GUI they come with.

THink of it this way: the main product you pay for is the engine. The GUI is
just a nice add-on. So you wouldn't be cheaper off if you could buy "just the
Hiarcs engine without interface".

>3.  In the rec.games.chess.computers newsgroup, someone informally contrasted
>the two search engines (Fritz 5.32 vs Hiarcs 7.32) by calling Fritz a tactical
>monster, and indicating that Hiarcs more often "agrees" with the move actually
>chosen by the Grandmaster.  Perhaps this relates to Hiarcs' "backward game
>analysis" feature.  Intriguing, REQUEST FEEDBACK ON THIS.

See answer to 1. Not related to backward analysis.
Just a matter of playing style. Besides, Hiarcs can find many tactical shots
faster than Fritz, despite its low speed. Fritz just tends to go for tactical
battles in actual games, whereas Hiarcs has a more positional, human style.

>4.  Taking everything above with a large boulder of salt:  if it is all true,
>then I infer that Fritz is consistently superior in analyzing a "static"
>position (i.e. setup a position and then say analyze).  REQUEST FEEDBACK ON
>THIS.

Hiarcs is definitely stronger, regardless if for actual games or analysis of
given positions. Fritz may be better on certain positions or test suites, but in
the long run, Hiarcs has the edge.

---
Shep



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.