Optimizing Hiarcs 12 MP
Moderators: Watchman, Mark Uniacke, mrudolf
- PortCitySlim
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Conservative, America
Optimizing Hiarcs 12 MP
In the playchess engine room I have heard that Rybka is winning over 60% of the games being played on equal equipment. I wont have my copy of Deep H12 till later this week, however, I would like to know if you guys have any advice on how to configure the program to at least give Rybka a fight at 40/20 time controls down to 4 or 5 min games. I am running Dual 2.2ghz and 4gb of ram on Vista Ultimate(64bit). thanks
- Dylan Sharp
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:07 am
(Reply reposted below as the posts appeared at the same time and maybe he overlooked it.)
Last edited by Dylan Sharp on Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
- PortCitySlim
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Conservative, America
This is one example of the above statements I was talking about, this quote came from the Rybka forum.Since H12 was released I have spent a few hours watching games played on the playchess server at various time controls to try and help me make up my mind if I should buy yet another HIARCS 32bit engine ( Latest one I have is 11.2 ) ... I know it was not a very scientific approach but I only saw H12 win 1 game!! some draws and plenty of losses ... Of course books etc can make a big difference but by watching plenty of games you start to get a feel and it feels like H12 will not even make it to number 2 on the rankings
- Dylan Sharp
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:07 am
My advice is to work on the book, as what some people in there do when they have a weaker hardware is to build a very strong book, and then book win the opponent, or at least have a winning advantage on time after getting out of book.
Focus in some obscure but strong variation that it's not on the book of the opponents, and build your strategy out of it, by deeply analyzing most of its variations so you're ready against everything, and these openings at fast time controls are played instantly backed up by your offline analysis at slow time controls.
Good luck.
Focus in some obscure but strong variation that it's not on the book of the opponents, and build your strategy out of it, by deeply analyzing most of its variations so you're ready against everything, and these openings at fast time controls are played instantly backed up by your offline analysis at slow time controls.
Good luck.
- PortCitySlim
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Conservative, America
- Dylan Sharp
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2431
- Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:07 am
-
- Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:34 pm
- PortCitySlim
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Conservative, America
After 51 fast(3m0s,3m1s,5m0s) games in the playchess engine room my Deep HIARCS 12 elo is 2470. I am running on a AMD X2 Turion TL 64 2.2ghz(2048mb hash) which is slightly slower then the average machine in the engine room. 42 of my games were against Rybka engines and I have a 20.5/51(40.2%) result with an average opponents elo of 2552. I used default settings with book set to optimize. I did change the Forward Pruning from FP10 to FP11 for ten games, which I felt improved the play for speed games(still unsure though). I have been considering changing the Threat Depth(to maybe 4 or 6) and possibly taking off hyper-modern play for speed games in hopes of improving HIARCS strength in 5min and less games. Does anyone have any tips about these setting for speed games?
I feel that the only major weakness of HIARCS is its endgame strength, after watching 51 games I saw HIARCS lose several endgames where it was evaluating positively and most of the time up material and never saw HIARCS comeback when negative or down material. HIARCS had a slight advantage after the opening in most games probably due to its super strong book and I feel that is HAIRCS's main advantage.
I feel that the only major weakness of HIARCS is its endgame strength, after watching 51 games I saw HIARCS lose several endgames where it was evaluating positively and most of the time up material and never saw HIARCS comeback when negative or down material. HIARCS had a slight advantage after the opening in most games probably due to its super strong book and I feel that is HAIRCS's main advantage.
- Harvey Williamson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6079
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
- Location: Media City, UK
- Contact:
- PortCitySlim
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Conservative, America
Ok, after 15 more games with FP11 setting H12 improved its elo to 2551(engine room) and the endgame problems have disappeared. I retract what I said before about H12's endgame ability, I just didn't give it enough time before. H12's book is amazing and I haven't seen it lose with white against the Poison Pawn Najdorf. I still haven't played enough games to be sure but it looks like FP11 is helping my H12 at blitz time controls. Here is a game H12 played against a Rybka that had me out-powered(I think it was Intel Dual 2.66-3.0ghz) where the fishka was winning(as much as 3.23) until the fatal 46..a5?? and H12 capitalized to win even down 1 pawn and facing 2 passed queenside pawns.
[Event "Rated game, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Engine Room"]
[Date "2008.04.15"]
[White "PortCitySlim, Deep Hiarcs 12"]
[Black "Yuksel09, Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D43"]
[WhiteElo "2531"]
[BlackElo "2601"]
{DHiarcs12.ctg, 2048 MB} 1. d4 {B/0 0} Nf6 {0} 2. Nf3 {B/0 0} d5 {(g6) 0} 3. c4
{B/0 0} e6 {(c6) 0} 4. Nc3 {B/0 0} c6 {0} 5. Bg5 {B/0 0} h6 {(dxc4) 0} 6. Bh4 {
B/0 0} dxc4 {0} 7. e4 {B/0 0} g5 {0} 8. Bg3 {B/0 0} b5 {0} 9. Be2 {B/0 0} Bb7 {
(Bb4) 0} 10. h4 {B/0 0} g4 {(b4) 0} 11. Ne5 {B/0 0} Nbd7 {0} 12. Bxg4 {B/0 0}
Rg8 {(Nxe5) 0} 13. Nxd7 {B/0 0} Qxd7 {0} 14. Bf3 {B/0 0} O-O-O {0} 15. Qd2 {
B/0 0} c5 {0} 16. Qf4 {B/0 0} Rxg3 {0} 17. fxg3 {B/0 0} cxd4 {0} 18. O-O-O {
B/0 0} Ne8 {0} 19. e5 {B/0 0} Bxf3 {(Ba6) 0} 20. gxf3 {0.12/13 13} Nc7 {0} 21.
a3 {0.04/12 12} d3 {0} 22. g4 {-0.20/12 6} Nd5 {-0.33/12 4} 23. Nxd5 {
-0.49/12 5} Qxd5 {-0.38/13 3} 24. Rh2 {-1.17/12 11} Bc5 {(Rd7) -0.86/15 3} 25.
Rhd2 {-1.34/12 7} Rd7 {-0.96/10 0} 26. Kb1 {-1.55/13 7} Bxa3 {-1.11/14 3} 27.
bxa3 {-1.55/13 1} c3 {-1.75/15 10} 28. Rb2 {-1.86/12 0} c2+ {-2.49/13 4} 29.
Kc1 {-1.91/13 1} cxd1=Q+ {-2.56/14 1} 30. Kxd1 {-2.20/14 0} Rc7 {-2.65/15 2}
31. Qe3 {-3.20/13 6} Rc3 {(h5) -2.67/15 0} 32. Rd2 {-3.23/12 8} Rxa3 {
(h5) -2.79/15 8} 33. Ke1 {-2.52/11 1} Kb7 {-2.83/14 5} 34. Kf2 {-2.77/13 1} Ra2
{-3.36/12 3} 35. Ke1 {-2.30/13 1} Ra1+ {(Rxd2) -2.09/13 18} 36. Kf2 {-2.12/13 3
} Ra3 {-1.95/14 1} 37. Qf4 {-2.78/13 8} Ka6 {-2.67/10 3} 38. Qb4 {-2.84/13 9}
Ra2 {-2.74/12 1} 39. Rxa2+ {-1.87/13 3} Qxa2+ {-2.74/14 1} 40. Ke3 {-1.87/14 0}
Qe2+ {-1.69/14 12} 41. Kd4 {-1.80/15 0} Qf2+ {(Qc2) -1.69/14 4} 42. Ke4 {
-1.41/13 2} Qc2 {-1.06/15 8} 43. Ke3 {-1.28/14 0} Qc1+ {-1.00/14 5} 44. Kxd3 {
-0.82/13 0} Qd1+ {(Qc6) -1.19/12 2} 45. Ke3 {-0.88/12 1} Kb6 {-1.04/12 1} 46.
h5 {-0.59/13 6} a5 {(Qg1+) -0.08/13 3} 47. Qd4+ {7.87/14 5} Qxd4+ {10.18/12 8}
48. Kxd4 {9.87/18 0} Kc6 {(a4) 10.19/12 1} 49. g5 {11.14/13 4} hxg5 {
(a4) 10.43/13 0} 50. h6 {
Yuksel09,Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-b resigns (Lag: Av=0.38s, max=0.9s) 11.16/11 1}
1-0
[Event "Rated game, 3m + 0s"]
[Site "Engine Room"]
[Date "2008.04.15"]
[White "PortCitySlim, Deep Hiarcs 12"]
[Black "Yuksel09, Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D43"]
[WhiteElo "2531"]
[BlackElo "2601"]
{DHiarcs12.ctg, 2048 MB} 1. d4 {B/0 0} Nf6 {0} 2. Nf3 {B/0 0} d5 {(g6) 0} 3. c4
{B/0 0} e6 {(c6) 0} 4. Nc3 {B/0 0} c6 {0} 5. Bg5 {B/0 0} h6 {(dxc4) 0} 6. Bh4 {
B/0 0} dxc4 {0} 7. e4 {B/0 0} g5 {0} 8. Bg3 {B/0 0} b5 {0} 9. Be2 {B/0 0} Bb7 {
(Bb4) 0} 10. h4 {B/0 0} g4 {(b4) 0} 11. Ne5 {B/0 0} Nbd7 {0} 12. Bxg4 {B/0 0}
Rg8 {(Nxe5) 0} 13. Nxd7 {B/0 0} Qxd7 {0} 14. Bf3 {B/0 0} O-O-O {0} 15. Qd2 {
B/0 0} c5 {0} 16. Qf4 {B/0 0} Rxg3 {0} 17. fxg3 {B/0 0} cxd4 {0} 18. O-O-O {
B/0 0} Ne8 {0} 19. e5 {B/0 0} Bxf3 {(Ba6) 0} 20. gxf3 {0.12/13 13} Nc7 {0} 21.
a3 {0.04/12 12} d3 {0} 22. g4 {-0.20/12 6} Nd5 {-0.33/12 4} 23. Nxd5 {
-0.49/12 5} Qxd5 {-0.38/13 3} 24. Rh2 {-1.17/12 11} Bc5 {(Rd7) -0.86/15 3} 25.
Rhd2 {-1.34/12 7} Rd7 {-0.96/10 0} 26. Kb1 {-1.55/13 7} Bxa3 {-1.11/14 3} 27.
bxa3 {-1.55/13 1} c3 {-1.75/15 10} 28. Rb2 {-1.86/12 0} c2+ {-2.49/13 4} 29.
Kc1 {-1.91/13 1} cxd1=Q+ {-2.56/14 1} 30. Kxd1 {-2.20/14 0} Rc7 {-2.65/15 2}
31. Qe3 {-3.20/13 6} Rc3 {(h5) -2.67/15 0} 32. Rd2 {-3.23/12 8} Rxa3 {
(h5) -2.79/15 8} 33. Ke1 {-2.52/11 1} Kb7 {-2.83/14 5} 34. Kf2 {-2.77/13 1} Ra2
{-3.36/12 3} 35. Ke1 {-2.30/13 1} Ra1+ {(Rxd2) -2.09/13 18} 36. Kf2 {-2.12/13 3
} Ra3 {-1.95/14 1} 37. Qf4 {-2.78/13 8} Ka6 {-2.67/10 3} 38. Qb4 {-2.84/13 9}
Ra2 {-2.74/12 1} 39. Rxa2+ {-1.87/13 3} Qxa2+ {-2.74/14 1} 40. Ke3 {-1.87/14 0}
Qe2+ {-1.69/14 12} 41. Kd4 {-1.80/15 0} Qf2+ {(Qc2) -1.69/14 4} 42. Ke4 {
-1.41/13 2} Qc2 {-1.06/15 8} 43. Ke3 {-1.28/14 0} Qc1+ {-1.00/14 5} 44. Kxd3 {
-0.82/13 0} Qd1+ {(Qc6) -1.19/12 2} 45. Ke3 {-0.88/12 1} Kb6 {-1.04/12 1} 46.
h5 {-0.59/13 6} a5 {(Qg1+) -0.08/13 3} 47. Qd4+ {7.87/14 5} Qxd4+ {10.18/12 8}
48. Kxd4 {9.87/18 0} Kc6 {(a4) 10.19/12 1} 49. g5 {11.14/13 4} hxg5 {
(a4) 10.43/13 0} 50. h6 {
Yuksel09,Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-b resigns (Lag: Av=0.38s, max=0.9s) 11.16/11 1}
1-0
- PortCitySlim
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Conservative, America
What happens if you reduce the Hiarcs book "variety of play" value under book options to less then "optimize"? I notice that when you select "optimize" book the value goes down greatly but not all the way. This might be a "duh" question but I am inclined to believe that it would make Hiarcs only play the very strongest lines for example if Hiarcs thinks that 1..c5 is the best reply to 1.e4 then it would only play 1..c5 against 1.e4 under those settings? Why would reducing that value a little more hurt?
- PortCitySlim
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Conservative, America
PortCitySlim wrote:What happens if you reduce the Hiarcs book "variety of play" value under book options to less then "optimize"? I notice that when you select "optimize" book the value goes down greatly but not all the way. This might be a "duh" question but I am inclined to believe that it would make Hiarcs only play the very strongest lines for example if Hiarcs thinks that 1..c5 is the best reply to 1.e4 then it would only play 1..c5 against 1.e4 under those settings? Why would reducing that value a little more hurt?
bump. Anyone know the answer to this?
- Harvey Williamson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6079
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
- Location: Media City, UK
- Contact:
If you really want to play only c5 then you are best to edit the book directly. Another danger is that it may keep repeating a losing line with no variety.PortCitySlim wrote:PortCitySlim wrote:What happens if you reduce the Hiarcs book "variety of play" value under book options to less then "optimize"? I notice that when you select "optimize" book the value goes down greatly but not all the way. This might be a "duh" question but I am inclined to believe that it would make Hiarcs only play the very strongest lines for example if Hiarcs thinks that 1..c5 is the best reply to 1.e4 then it would only play 1..c5 against 1.e4 under those settings? Why would reducing that value a little more hurt?
bump. Anyone know the answer to this?
- Dark Horse
- Hiarcs Team Captain
- Posts: 3673
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:25 pm
- Location: from a cubicle in Bangalore
my Deep HIARCS 12 came today, I'm getting about 1250 Kn/Sec in complex positions and about 1400 - 1600 Kn/Sec in open middle game positions and about 2400 Kn/Sec in end games with a fair amount of material, so I think my hardware is pretty good, I ran a couple of test positions and I am impressed (I use the engine only for analysis and preparation not for engine vs engine matches)
when I run Zappa I get about 1100 Kn/Sec for a position where I get 1400 Kn/Sec with Deep HIARCS, but I get almost 3000 Kn/Sec for the same position with Toga 1.4SE 4 CPU version
so maybe the Kn/Sec is not comparable accross engines ? (I read somewhere that Rybka's Kn/Sec value was not comparable)
but I like HIARCS performance in the test positions, it seems to be able to 0 in on the main line pretty fast while Zappa took a bit of time to do the same thing
when I run Zappa I get about 1100 Kn/Sec for a position where I get 1400 Kn/Sec with Deep HIARCS, but I get almost 3000 Kn/Sec for the same position with Toga 1.4SE 4 CPU version
so maybe the Kn/Sec is not comparable accross engines ? (I read somewhere that Rybka's Kn/Sec value was not comparable)
but I like HIARCS performance in the test positions, it seems to be able to 0 in on the main line pretty fast while Zappa took a bit of time to do the same thing
- Harvey Williamson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6079
- Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:57 am
- Location: Media City, UK
- Contact:
Your right you cant compare KN/s between different engines they all count them differently and search to different depths. It is widely acknowledged that both Rybka's depth and KN/s that are displayed are not real. You can probably add 2 or3 to depth and multiply KN/s by 10. I am glad you are enjoying Hiarcs and helping us to defeat the Rybka Wimps.Dark Horse wrote:my Deep HIARCS 12 came today, I'm getting about 1250 Kn/Sec in complex positions and about 1400 - 1600 Kn/Sec in open middle game positions and about 2400 Kn/Sec in end games with a fair amount of material, so I think my hardware is pretty good, I ran a couple of test positions and I am impressed (I use the engine only for analysis and preparation not for engine vs engine matches)
when I run Zappa I get about 1100 Kn/Sec for a position where I get 1400 Kn/Sec with Deep HIARCS, but I get almost 3000 Kn/Sec for the same position with Toga 1.4SE 4 CPU version
so maybe the Kn/Sec is not comparable accross engines ? (I read somewhere that Rybka's Kn/Sec value was not comparable)
but I like HIARCS performance in the test positions, it seems to be able to 0 in on the main line pretty fast while Zappa took a bit of time to do the same thing