How Much Is Hiarcs 14 worth?

[overlord]

Hiearcs 14 is worth 0 Euro/US dollars. Why should someone buy so weak engine, when much stronger Houdini or Stockfish is available for free...

[kinderchocolate]

Hiearcs 14 is worth 0 Euro/US dollars. Why should someone buy so weak engine, when much stronger Houdini or Stockfish is available for free...

Well, the GUI is also very difficult to program. You're paying for the engine plus GUI.

[mclane]

Hiearcs 14 is worth 0 Euro/US dollars. Why should someone buy so weak engine, when much stronger Houdini or Stockfish is available for free...

hiarcs plays different than atockfish or houdini. its good for analysis.

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

Hiearcs 14 is worth 0 Euro/US dollars. Why should someone buy so weak engine, when much stronger Houdini or Stockfish is available for free...

hiarcs plays different than atockfish or houdini. its good for analysis.

Playing differently is no reason to buy. I play very differently compared to Houdini or Stockfish, but I do not assume somebody wants to hire me for analyses

Since Hiarcs is much weaker, the chance to get a weak analysis compared to much stronger engines is high. So I cannot see a reason to "value" a different style, UNLESS the engine is nearly as strong as the competition.

Since most chess positions usually have a more or less best move, a personal style is just a sign for weakness. In theory, if engines can be further improved, chess engines should play nearly identical in the future.

[hgm]

Someone who actually has experience with this in correspondence Chess (Uly on Rybkaforum) tells a completely different story, though. Accoring to him Houdini is virtually useless, because it initially produces moves that, although winning in blitz, are losing in correspondence Chess. By the time (many hours) it switches to moves that are any good, other engines have already settled on those moves for a long time. So he does no longer use Houdini, but HIARCS, which suggests moves no other engine suggests, he considers a valuable asset...

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

Someone who actually has experience with this in correspondence Chess (Uly on Rybkaforum) tells a completely different story, though. Accoring to him Houdini is virtually useless, because it initially produces moves that, although winning in blitz, are losing in correspondence Chess. By the time (many hours) it switches to moves that are any good, other engines have already settled on those moves for a long time. So he does no longer use Houdini, but HIARCS, which suggests moves no other engine suggests, he considers a valuable asset...

OK, I agree, in this case it simply means that HIARCS is able to play at competitive level for correspondence chess purposes.
So my previous statement still holds; I cannot see a reason to "value" a different style, UNLESS the engine is nearly as strong as the competition.

[mclane]

Hiearcs 14 is worth 0 Euro/US dollars. Why should someone buy so weak engine, when much stronger Houdini or Stockfish is available for free...

hiarcs plays different than atockfish or houdini. its good for analysis.

Playing differently is no reason to buy. I play very differently compared to Houdini or Stockfish, but I do not assume somebody wants to hire me for analyses

Since Hiarcs is much weaker, the chance to get a weak analysis compared to much stronger engines is high. So I cannot see a reason to "value" a different style, UNLESS the engine is nearly as strong as the competition.

Since most chess positions usually have a more or less best move, a personal style is just a sign for weakness. In theory, if engines can be further improved, chess engines should play nearly identical in the future.

programs like houdini or rybka are not very good if you want to do analysis for mail-chess.
they are not intelligent enough. search depth is not everything.

[mclane]

Someone who actually has experience with this in correspondence Chess (Uly on Rybkaforum) tells a completely different story, though. Accoring to him Houdini is virtually useless, because it initially produces moves that, although winning in blitz, are losing in correspondence Chess. By the time (many hours) it switches to moves that are any good, other engines have already settled on those moves for a long time. So he does no longer use Houdini, but HIARCS, which suggests moves no other engine suggests, he considers a valuable asset...

OK, I agree, in this case it simply means that HIARCS is able to play at competitive level for correspondence chess purposes.
So my previous statement still holds; I cannot see a reason to "value" a different style, UNLESS the engine is nearly as strong as the competition.

you are wrong IMO.
for mail chess, its important to make interesting and intelligent moves.

[Dr. Axel Schumacher]

Someone who actually has experience with this in correspondence Chess (Uly on Rybkaforum) tells a completely different story, though. Accoring to him Houdini is virtually useless, because it initially produces moves that, although winning in blitz, are losing in correspondence Chess. By the time (many hours) it switches to moves that are any good, other engines have already settled on those moves for a long time. So he does no longer use Houdini, but HIARCS, which suggests moves no other engine suggests, he considers a valuable asset...

OK, I agree, in this case it simply means that HIARCS is able to play at competitive level for correspondence chess purposes.
So my previous statement still holds; I cannot see a reason to "value" a different style, UNLESS the engine is nearly as strong as the competition.

you are wrong IMO.
for mail chess, its important to make interesting and intelligent moves.

this applies to any form of chess

[mclane]

this applies to any form of chess

in other chess forms, time control is critical. and fast engines can outsearch others. in mail chess this is not so important.