Terry McCracken wrote:How long is a piece of string? How large is a lump of coal?
IOW how can I assign a value? If you asked what it is worth to you the chess program aficionados then maybe you could get an answer that means something.
I tend to agree althought elo strenght should be, in my opinion, an objective factor that could give anyway a subjective value
I don't know its value since I've never tested it. but there is more to evaluate than pure playing strength. some people like the HIARCS playing style, and it comes with it's own GUI. for analysis you can use the stronger stockfish or critter engines, which are free of charge.
if the GUI is good, in my opinion the current price is OK. if not, then it may be a little too expensive.
at the end it's up to you, if your are willing to pay for other peoples effort.
hgm wrote:Why would users care how many bits a program is? That seems a totally irrelevant technical detail.
Would you be wiling to pay more for a weaker engine just because it was 64 bits? Would you be willing to pay more for it if it was written in Java rather than C? Would you pay more for it if it was compiled with gcc rather than the Intel C compiler? Or when the programmer used a fancy IDE do write the code rather than NotePad?
Many consumers like to have at least the specs both hardware and software for overall performance. At least the informed ones do and the consumer is more sophisticated now than ever before and especially in technical areas.
Terry McCracken wrote:How long is a piece of string? How large is a lump of coal?
IOW how can I assign a value? If you asked what it is worth to you the chess program aficionados then maybe you could get an answer that means something.
I tend to agree althought elo strenght should be, in my opinion, an objective factor that could give anyway a subjective value
Sean Evans wrote:It makes the point that the author wants absolute top dollar for a program with mediocre ability and he is to lazy to make it 64bits!
Yes, but that is a point based on a misconception that 64-bit would be better than 32-bit. So the only point it makes, really, is that the one 'making the point' is rather ignorant as far as engine programming is concerned.
Sean Evans wrote:It makes the point that the author wants absolute top dollar for a program with mediocre ability and he is to lazy to make it 64bits!
Yes, but that is a point based on a misconception that 64-bit would be better than 32-bit. So the only point it makes, really, is that the one 'making the point' is rather ignorant as far as engine programming is concerned.
My apologies, Mr. BotExpert. Any idea when the 128bit CPUs will be coming out? There must be some AMD and Intel prototypes in that area?
I quite like the GUI (using it now in fact), and my only gripe is it has no ICS option.
Then again I don't need the strongest program in the World to kill me in games. I like an attractive playing style with a nice GUI. Hiarcs 14 has both in my mind.
It's priced exactly where it should be. Also I am not 100% convinced just because a program is 64 bit that it is better than a 32 bit program. Again just my opinion...
Peter
I was kicked out of Chapters because I moved all the Bibles to the fiction section.
I think the question is missing two words - "to me". The question should be, "How much is HIARCS 14 worth to me". For most people in the general public the engine and GUI is worth zero - they don't play chess and their money is better spent on other things. For the fanatic who collects chess GUIs the price is (almost) irrelevant. So the question is only meaningful in the context of the person who is thinking about purchasing.
If the question is somehow hinting that the product is too expensive, and not worth the price at which it is offered, then it's a nonsensical question. Nobody is forced to purchase it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. If, on the other hand, you think it could be useful then buy it. It's that simple. Mark is trying to scape together a living by pricing the product as he has. By doing so he is only increasing the number of choices we all have. I think this a good thing.
Sean Evans wrote:It makes the point that the author wants absolute top dollar for a program with mediocre ability and he is to lazy to make it 64bits!
Yes, but that is a point based on a misconception that 64-bit would be better than 32-bit. So the only point it makes, really, is that the one 'making the point' is rather ignorant as far as engine programming is concerned.
My apologies, Mr. BotExpert. Any idea when the 128bit CPUs will be coming out? There must be some AMD and Intel prototypes in that area?
Cordially,
Sean
Nothing for mainstream computing using CISC architecture. Maybe by the end of this decade?
