Being the author of a weak chess engine, I am used to seeing my program lost most of my test matches, often by horrible margins. I can handle that. Even though the numbers themselves are ugly, I can usually find something to cheer me up when looking at the games. Among the few wins, there are sometimes some really beautiful or spectacular games, even against giants like Fruit or Shredder. And in the innumerable lost games, there is often a good fight, and Glaurung displays considerable resourcefulness.
The one exception is Hiarcs. Except in some of the wildest king pawn openings, where Glaurung is sometimes able to score a half decent score (but of course never more than 50%), the games are terrible to behold. My poor little engine never has the shadow of a chance. Hiarcs invariably secures a tiny edge directly after the opening, and the eval relentlessly climbs by a few centipawns for every move, eventually reaching +5 or +6 somewhere between move 40 and 60. Glaurung never achieves anything resembling counterplay.
Today I had a shiny new Glaurung version ready for testing. I decided to run a Noomen match against Hiarcs 9.6. For a short while, it looked like I had finally managed to create a version which could hold its own against the mighty Hiarcs. After 36 games, when I had to leave the computer for a few hours, the standings were 18-18.
When coming back, I was of course eager to see how the match had developed. 53 games had been played while I was away. Imagine my disappointment when I found that Glaurung had lost 32, drawn 19, and won just 2 of these games. As usual, looking at the games didn't do much to raise my spirits. It doesn't look like Hiarcs playing against Glaurung at all, but more like Karpov at his prime playing against some slow dedicated computer chess unit from the middle of the 1980s. Disgusting beyond words.
Glaurung was slightly more successful in the last few games of the match, which ended 65.5-34.5 (+48,=35,-17) in favor of Hiarcs. In the end, not much better than the usual disastrous results. It looks like I still have some hard work to do before I can release a new and improved version of my engine.
There are several other engines which are as strong or stronger than Hiarcs 9.6, but I have never seen any other chess program which is able to consistently win games in such a polished and impressive style. There are many chess engines I admire, but Hiarcs is without doubt the one I most would have liked to have written myself. Waiting for Hiarcs 10 fills me with an uncomfortable mixture of excitement and dread.
Tord