How Much Is Hiarcs 14 worth?

[h1a8]

I disagree. There is evidence to suggest that houdini is stronger than most (if not all) engines in very slow games.

But any engines that are within 50 elo of the top should be statistically useful for analysis.

[Laskos]

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.

This is wrong. Many positions have a plurality of best and even perfect moves, and there could be perfect engines which play differently, according to their styles. And Hiarcs can still be useful if it's only tactically weaker, for example.

Kai

[Mithu]

Before the ippolitos came along Hiarcs was among the top 10 programs. Sometimes our appreciation must be in showing respect for what he accomplished all these years. In its chequered history it seems quite original without any trace of plagiarism. Honesty is a rare quality...
As a mark of respect to that human quality and maybe to reduce its price a little bit to make it affordable to me I have voted for 20$.
I hope I am not unfair and if I am I am sorry.

I will buy it very soon after saving up.

[bretti]

Before the ippolitos came along Hiarcs was among the top 10 programs. Sometimes our appreciation must be in showing respect for what he accomplished all these years. In its chequered history it seems quite original without any trace of plagiarism. Honesty is a rare quality...
As a mark of respect to that human quality and maybe to reduce its price a little bit to make it affordable to me I have voted for 20$.
I hope I am not unfair and if I am I am sorry.

I will buy it very soon after saving up.

I totally agree! I bought the Deep Version for Mac and like it much in spite of the fact, that it can be improved. But it will be for sure! Mark Uniacke works hard on all his great software like Hiarcs for Palm p.a. or the opening book.

[geots]

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.

Tho I don't really like too much the idea of these type polls- as I hate to see someone's feelings hurt- if I am going to be honest I say I agree with you and your nice summation. The saying that it has a unique style, if you ask me, has been "rode hard and put up wet." It's just that Stockfish is free, RobboLito is free, there are at the minimum a dozen versions of IvanHoe that Hiarcs absolutely can't stay with. And I think most everyone has jumped off the "Ivanhoe is not original" war wagon. Technically Houdini is free- as 1.5a can dismember any engine I know of. Then there is Bouquet and Gull- it goes on and on. You know, I am not mentioning like a lot of people that it is 200 elo below Houdini. Simply because most all other commercials outside of Komodo and Rybka all are anyway as well. But I just gave you 16 versions of free stuff Hiarcs has no chance against. Maybe a gui wasn't a bad idea- except we already got those coming out our rear ends as well. It's really tough when your best just doesn't get the job done any longer. It's kinda sad, in a way.


Best-

gts

[Carlos Ylich]

Before the ippolitos came along Hiarcs was among the top 10 programs. Sometimes our appreciation must be in showing respect for what he accomplished all these years. In its chequered history it seems quite original without any trace of plagiarism. Honesty is a rare quality...
As a mark of respect to that human quality and maybe to reduce its price a little bit to make it affordable to me I have voted for 20$.
I hope I am not unfair and if I am I am sorry.

I will buy it very soon after saving up.

I agree !

[Don]

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...

I have a very hard time believing that. Any top engine should be play better correspondence chess than one hundreds of ELO weaker.

Maybe this is a style issue. Maybe, for whatever reason, Uly does not like the playing style of Houdini for correspondence chess.

I would like to see examples of what he is talking about, not just one but several - but even one would be better than nothing.

[velmarin]

In another thread on this forum someone suggested the same.

Many times it happens that we propose engines weakest plays that humans we understand,
that makes us think we are more positional, strategic o as suggested intelligent.

It is difficult to understand the stronger engines, plays XX plys reaching beyond the human reasoning.

The evidence is in the rating lists, is something final, the best are up.
And Hiarcs is not.

[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...

I have a very hard time believing that. Any top engine should be play better correspondence chess than one hundreds of ELO weaker.

Maybe this is a style issue. Maybe, for whatever reason, Uly does not like the playing style of Houdini for correspondence chess.

I would like to see examples of what he is talking about, not just one but several - but even one would be better than nothing.

ok. i do begin.
1st testposition:


this is a real mail chess / correspondance game.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.O-O Bc5 8.Kh1 b5 9.f4 Bb7 10.Bf3 O-O 11.e5 Bxf3 12.Nxf3 Ng4 13.Ne4 Be7 14.Nfg5 f5 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.Qd3 g6 17.Qh3 h5 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Qd3 Kg7 20.Ne4 Nc6 21.c3 Be7 22.Be3 d5 23.Nd2 Rf5 24.Nf3 Bf6 25.a4 bxa4 26.Rxa4 a5 27.h3 h4 28.Bf2 Rh8 29.Re1 Kf7 30.Qd2 Qb8 31.Qe2 Qd6 32.Nh2 Bg7 33.Ng4 Qd7 34.Qd1 Rfh5 35.Rae4 Re8 36.R4e3 Rf5 37.Qa4 Rh5 38.R3e2 Qc7 39.Qb5 Qd7 40.Qd3 Qd6 41.b3 Qd7 42.c4 Re7 43.Rd2 Qd6 44.Rdd1 Rc7 45.Qf3 Kg8 46.Qe4 Ne7 47.c5 Qd7 48.Qxe6+ Qxe6 49.Rxe6 Kf7 50.Rd6 d4 51.Ne5+ Bxe5 52.fxe5 Rxe5 53.Bxd4 Re6 54.Bf2 Nf5 55.Rd7+ Rxd7 56.Rxd7+ Ke8 57.Rd1 Re2 58.Re1 Nd4 59.Rxe2+ Nxe2 60.Be1 Nd4 61.Bxa5 Nxb3 62.Bb6 Nd4 63.Kg1 Kd7 64.Kf2 Ke6 65.Ke3 Ke5 66.Bc7+ Kd5 *

move 62.

[D]4k3/8/6p1/B1P5/7p/1n5P/6P1/7K w - - 0 62
Houdini moves Be1.
this gives up the important pawn c5.
in opposite to houdini2.0, hiarcs14 changes to the right move bb6 that defends
the important pawn. hiarcs increases evaluation from 0.80 to 1 pawn and later 1.20.


humans know how important pawns are.
chess programs need knowledge. and if the program
has not implemented this knowledge in the evaluation function,
search depth will NOT find it although
we have fast computers and very fast chess programs (fast searchers).

[Don]

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...

I have a very hard time believing that. Any top engine should be play better correspondence chess than one hundreds of ELO weaker.

Maybe this is a style issue. Maybe, for whatever reason, Uly does not like the playing style of Houdini for correspondence chess.

I would like to see examples of what he is talking about, not just one but several - but even one would be better than nothing.

ok. i do begin.
1st testposition:


this is a real mail chess / correspondance game.

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be2 Nf6 7.O-O Bc5 8.Kh1 b5 9.f4 Bb7 10.Bf3 O-O 11.e5 Bxf3 12.Nxf3 Ng4 13.Ne4 Be7 14.Nfg5 f5 15.exf6 Nxf6 16.Qd3 g6 17.Qh3 h5 18.Nxf6+ Bxf6 19.Qd3 Kg7 20.Ne4 Nc6 21.c3 Be7 22.Be3 d5 23.Nd2 Rf5 24.Nf3 Bf6 25.a4 bxa4 26.Rxa4 a5 27.h3 h4 28.Bf2 Rh8 29.Re1 Kf7 30.Qd2 Qb8 31.Qe2 Qd6 32.Nh2 Bg7 33.Ng4 Qd7 34.Qd1 Rfh5 35.Rae4 Re8 36.R4e3 Rf5 37.Qa4 Rh5 38.R3e2 Qc7 39.Qb5 Qd7 40.Qd3 Qd6 41.b3 Qd7 42.c4 Re7 43.Rd2 Qd6 44.Rdd1 Rc7 45.Qf3 Kg8 46.Qe4 Ne7 47.c5 Qd7 48.Qxe6+ Qxe6 49.Rxe6 Kf7 50.Rd6 d4 51.Ne5+ Bxe5 52.fxe5 Rxe5 53.Bxd4 Re6 54.Bf2 Nf5 55.Rd7+ Rxd7 56.Rxd7+ Ke8 57.Rd1 Re2 58.Re1 Nd4 59.Rxe2+ Nxe2 60.Be1 Nd4 61.Bxa5 Nxb3 62.Bb6 Nd4 63.Kg1 Kd7 64.Kf2 Ke6 65.Ke3 Ke5 66.Bc7+ Kd5 *

move 62.

[D]4k3/8/6p1/B1P5/7p/1n5P/6P1/7K w - - 0 62
Houdini moves Be1.
this gives up the important pawn c5.
in opposite to houdini2.0, hiarcs14 changes to the right move bb6 that defends
the important pawn. hiarcs increases evaluation from 0.80 to 1 pawn and later 1.20.


humans know how important pawns are.
chess programs need knowledge. and if the program
has not implemented this knowledge in the evaluation function,
search depth will NOT find it although
we have fast computers and very fast chess programs (fast searchers).

That is pretty bizarre - I cannot figure out why Komodo (who also likes Be1) would so happily give up a passed pawn. Komodo does give a relatively high score for the king side pawn majority but that should not trump a nice passed pawn.

It may be too much emphasis on bishop mobility but that doesn't really explain it either. This is a puzzler. I think Bb6 probably wins.