TalkChess.com

nuff wrote:It seems as if Hiarcs is not everybody's cup of tea.

Can you name an engine that is everbody's cup of Tea?

nuff wrote:It seems as if Hiarcs is not everybody's cup of tea.

Hi John,

despite those criticisms, Hiarcs is a fine engine, second best in strength only to Rybka.

Good progress seems to be being made too if you look at the various rating lists (with the X54 versions being the only blip along the way).

Hiarcs certainly seems to be the biggest threat to Rybka's dominance as things currently stand.

Regards, Graham.

At least it is my cup of tea. Perhaps second in streght to Rybka, anyway is more than a match for me in that aspect and what is more, I consider it first in quality of the game, in its capability to entertain and give great fun.
Rybka is perhaps somewhat -not much- stronger, but also duller.
Yesterday I played a serious game with Hiarcs. I was playing really well and at around move 35 I was even already thinking how I was going to materalize my advantage. Then, in a sudden, the beast found a resource, some counterplay, and then killed me around move 45.
Thats the thrill...

From the Hades Regards
Fernando

Graham Banks wrote:

nuff wrote:It seems as if Hiarcs is not everybody's cup of tea.

Hi John,

despite those criticisms, Hiarcs is a fine engine, second best in strength only to Rybka.

Good progress seems to be being made too if you look at the various rating lists (with the X54 versions being the only blip along the way).

Hiarcs certainly seems to be the biggest threat to Rybka's dominance as things currently stand.

Regards, Graham.

Why do all those who wish to support Hiarcs go for such approximate statements?

As far as I know Zap!chess is still clearly better than Hiarcs ...

So OK Hiarcs is very strong and actively developped.

But Zap is still ahead so far and I am not convinced at all that A. Cozzie won't come back : his baby plays every major tournament these days ...

Marc

Marc Lacrosse wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:

nuff wrote:It seems as if Hiarcs is not everybody's cup of tea.

Hi John,

despite those criticisms, Hiarcs is a fine engine, second best in strength only to Rybka.

Good progress seems to be being made too if you look at the various rating lists (with the X54 versions being the only blip along the way).

Hiarcs certainly seems to be the biggest threat to Rybka's dominance as things currently stand.

Regards, Graham.

Why do all those who wish to support Hiarcs go for such approximate statements?

As far as I know Zap!chess is still clearly better than Hiarcs ...

So OK Hiarcs is very strong and actively developped.

But Zap is still ahead so far and I am not convinced at all that A. Cozzie won't come back : his baby plays every major tournament these days ...

Marc

Yes - on multi-cpu machines you're correct. My oversight.
I'm so used to looking at the 32-bit 1CPU ratings where Hiarcs does have the edge.

However, unless Anthony gets the enthusiasm to continue developing Zap, then Hiarcs indeed remains the biggest threat to Rybka's dominance.

Sorry - Graham.

Most computer users (maybe not most computer-chess enthusiasts granted) have single CPU machines. I do.

Marc Lacrosse wrote:

Graham Banks wrote:

nuff wrote:It seems as if Hiarcs is not everybody's cup of tea.

Hi John,

despite those criticisms, Hiarcs is a fine engine, second best in strength only to Rybka.

Good progress seems to be being made too if you look at the various rating lists (with the X54 versions being the only blip along the way).

Hiarcs certainly seems to be the biggest threat to Rybka's dominance as things currently stand.

Regards, Graham.

Why do all those who wish to support Hiarcs go for such approximate statements?

As far as I know Zap!chess is still clearly better than Hiarcs ...

So OK Hiarcs is very strong and actively developped.

But Zap is still ahead so far and I am not convinced at all that A. Cozzie won't come back : his baby plays every major tournament these days ...

Marc

No
It is not correct that Zap is clearly better than hiarcs
It is correct only if you are rich and have money for super hardware.
Hiarcs is better for most customers that use single cpu and 32 bits and I do not expect it to change in the near future because people do not replace their hardware very often.


Even if you give Zap 64 bit then is not used by most customers then Hiarcs has still higher rating.

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... ons_only=1

2 Hiarcs 11.1 2910 +24 −24 60.2% −67.8 41.3% 543
60.0%
3 Zap!Chess Zanzibar 64-bit 2905 +28 −27 55.7% −34.6 52.0% 383
56.8%

Based on the cegt list it is even not clear if zap 32 bit is better than free toga

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html

39 Hiarcs 11.1 1CPU 2837 41 41 176 55.1 % 2801 37.5 %
57 Toga II 1.2.1a 2799 8 8 4874 53.9 % 2772 35.2 %
59 Zap!Chess Zanzibar w32 1CPU 2796 21 21 572 50.3 % 2793 43.4 %

Regarding this issue I think that the CCRL results are more accurate

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:Regarding this issue I think that the CCRL results are more accurate

Appreciate that, Dr. We are certainly diligent in trying to give the most reliable results possible. There is something for everyone- single cpu users, dual users, 64 bit users and 32 bit users. I myself don't pay much attention to all the tournaments run any longer. It seems to me it has a lot less to do with the engine than with the hardware someone can afford to buy or borrow. No doubt engine strength is still important- but generally the hardware most likely should get the trophy. Give me a good rating list any day.

Best to you,