as long as people and there work can still inspire me, everything seems to be fine.
Hobbes is just great.
- small number of very fast draws
- move-average is for the small number of very fast draws fantastic, a bit sensational.
- quantity of quick wins is better as average
A very solid engine with a clear strategy, especially in the late mid-games.
But mostly interesting is the fact that it's the second-best move. Often I am thinking, now the next and the next aggrissve move must follow and I am looking on king size. But in such situation Hobbes are playing moves on queen site, made the position great and don't forget possible counterattacks. Sure, all strong engines should do that and do that but in case from Hobbes ... I don't know why ... my feeling is that Hobbes can make it better as others.
An other interesting points is the quantity of points vs. clearly weaker. Maybe that has something to do with the observation I wrote before, because Hobbes performs significantly better against much weaker opponents than others can.
- Uralochka could be a tough opponent. Must be check in detail.
Also, interesting the second engine by the programmer. The JAVA engines Calvin. The draw quote with my ETOC-G system is very low, not for Calvin. A lot of draws vs. clearly weaker and vs. clearly stronger. That's unusual, never seen that before. I don't have a logical explanation for it. This fact immediately catches the eye!
Fact is:
The programmer made Hobbes and Calvin great! Programs with a very own style and it seems the style between both programs are quiet different. It seems that both engines have been optimized in detail according to a clear plan. Nice, pure engine power from The Netherlands.
What can I learn from Hobbes and Calvin?
I need also a clear plan.
Best
Frank
My test-run for Hobbes is still running.
This are impressions, in most of cases impressions are right.
PS: I had some problems with Hobbes v1.0 and Shredder GUI, not with version v2.1, v2.1 runs without any problems.