what will it take to push hiarcs past everyone else on the ratings list ? i really like hiarcs and would love to see it happen . i know very few people will agree with me but i think a possible way would be with learning and a really really good book . im more of a chess player than computer chess guy but the advantage of a computer should be not having to think about a position it has played before or others have played before . opening is really the most important part of the game . if i get a really good advantage out of the opening i can beat just about anyone . but if i get a bad opening i can lose to players 300 points weaker than me if i dont find a quick way to even out the situation . i think the answer is to think more like a chess player when trying to solve the problem of trying to make hiarcs better . you know how they had something called advanced chess where a human played with the aide of a chess program and was alot stronger than the program itself . the combination of human and computer was stronger . think about why that was .the human in a match vs the computer will get beat but the human knew what moves should be investigated even if he lacked the processing power the computer has .
just a thought , my point is if you keep doing the same thing and you keep getting the same result its time to think outside the box . also everyone and everything has a weakness the key is finding it and exploiting it and weeding the weakness from your game .
what will it take ?
Moderators: Harvey Williamson, Steve B, Watchman
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the fen tag before the upgrade.
Re: what will it take ?
Ratings lists are overrated. Hiarcs is an amazing analysis partner with a killer opening book. I don't think Hiarcs needs to change much at all.irvstein wrote:what will it take to push hiarcs past everyone else on the ratings list ? i really like hiarcs and would love to see it happen . i know very few people will agree with me but i think a possible way would be with learning and a really really good book . im more of a chess player than computer chess guy but the advantage of a computer should be not having to think about a position it has played before or others have played before . opening is really the most important part of the game . if i get a really good advantage out of the opening i can beat just about anyone . but if i get a bad opening i can lose to players 300 points weaker than me if i dont find a quick way to even out the situation . i think the answer is to think more like a chess player when trying to solve the problem of trying to make hiarcs better . you know how they had something called advanced chess where a human played with the aide of a chess program and was alot stronger than the program itself . the combination of human and computer was stronger . think about why that was .the human in a match vs the computer will get beat but the human knew what moves should be investigated even if he lacked the processing power the computer has .
just a thought , my point is if you keep doing the same thing and you keep getting the same result its time to think outside the box . also everyone and everything has a weakness the key is finding it and exploiting it and weeding the weakness from your game .
-
Björn Ulveaus
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 12:02 pm
Most chess players these days use an engine as a type of analysis partner, so would not really be interested in some super booked up automaton.Hiarcs has been a consistent performer over the years with gradual improvements along the way.The days are gone when the top chess pros had to have the absolute best engine so as to help them study, let alone us mortals when almost any thing will suffice.
Hiarcs being #1 in the rating lists would just be the cherry on top.
Hiarcs being #1 in the rating lists would just be the cherry on top.
rybka can play vs humans to
i like what you said " and this is the way it will go " hehehe which is basically giving up on the idea of being #1 .hiarcs could be #1 and still be great vs humans . the difference between the best and all the rest is not that much . i think it would be a sad situation if hiarcs was not striving to be #1 yes hiarcs has a great style etc etc but i think its possible for hiarcs to be #1 . i think the programer of hiarcs is every bit as good as the programer of rybka . i dont think he is satisfied at not being #1 . just like i dont think the programer of rybka should be satisfied that houdini is stronger now . if its just being great vs humans make the computer put a high priority for open games . a wide open game is going to 99% time favor the computer because of the tactical possibilities . or i even thought of a idea having like 5 different personalities that show up randonly throughout the game you never know which personality will play the next 10 moves . but in the end elo does matter ,, it matters to me .