TalkChess.com

hi folks,

i know engines differ a great deal in terms of knowledge and speed of search, and speed isn't everything. I've been comparing hiarcs to stockfish, and it looks to me that hiarcs is much slower to get to a particular depth, but its evaluation seems a little more accurate (similar to stockfish at greater depth). any truth to this. If you were to rank top engines in terms of speed, which would be the slowest engine (e.g., to get to a depth of 20 in a particular position).

10-12 years ago I decompiled the old versions of Fritz and Hiarcs. Fritz was the most optimized for speed, had a very simple evaluation function and a very high speed of search. Evaluation function of Hiarcs was more complicated, and the speed of about 3 times lower.

Osipov Jury wrote:10-12 years ago I decompiled the old versions of Fritz and Hiarcs. Fritz was the most optimized for speed, had a very simple evaluation function and a very high speed of search. Evaluation function of Hiarcs was more complicated, and the speed of about 3 times lower.

My man

could u make fritz uci compatible?

jmartus wrote:could u make fritz uci compatible?

C'mon can't one of the brilliant programmers here hack the chessbase *.eng format!