Uri Blass wrote:
No
It is not correct that Zap is clearly better than hiarcs
I agree that you are right here, but only partially IMHO.
In fact the distance between rybka and followers is much greater than the one between Hiarcs and those which are just behind it even on 32bits single CPUs (see F10 or free rybka or Toga, ...).
So all these posts saying that rybka apart we have a second clearly dominating engine are not founded IMHO.
At this time, even limiting the discussion to 32b single processors, hiarcs is just "primus inter pares" and is still far from having proven that it is the "second dominator".
This is just what I liked to say:
I am still surprised to see that the much "louder" public presence of Hiarcs team in forums like the CCC is enough to convince many people of things that are not that clear.
That's like all these years of claims for the so-called "human touch" of Hiarcs play : I did never see any objective support for this.
In the present state of things, those who wish to make some deep analysis cannot do it without some version of rybka.
At the opposite Hiarcs is in no way mandatory.
For what regards myself I do not use Hiarcs for my analyses and I prefer to rely on some oldies like shredder and junior in some kinds of positions for complementing Rybka's advices. I really do not feel I miss something that great because I do not use Hiarcs.
Do you have many examples of positions where Hiarcs'analysis is clearly superior to that of those engines that are just behind it in the rating lists ?
There are thousands of such examples for rybka versus others. Not for Hiarcs AFAIK.
Uri Blass wrote:It is correct only if you are rich and have money for super hardware.
A basic dual core is entry level hardware nowadays and the price of quads will drop this summer.
Marc
