Author: Harald Faber
Date: 15:21:48 05/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2002 at 03:36:46, Vine Smith wrote:
>This game was posted a couple of days ago:
>
>[Event "60 10"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "2002.05.12"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Nimzo 2000b"]
>[Black "Hiarcs 8"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "C47"]
>[Annotator "PIII1200-Athlon1333,Ponder=On"]
>[PlyCount "37"]
>[TimeControl "3600+10"]
>
>{288MB, Hiarcs8.ctg, PIII1200
>} 1. e4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 2.
>Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:06]} Nc6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 3. Nc3 {(Lb5) [%emt 0:00:03]} Nf6 {
>[%emt 0:00:00]} 4. d4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} exd4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 5. Nd5 {
>(Sxd4) [%emt 0:00:03]} Nxe4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 6. Qe2 {[%emt 0:00:04]} f5 {
>[%emt 0:00:00]} 7. Ng5 {[%emt 0:00:04]} d3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 8. cxd3 {
>[%emt 0:00:04]} Nd4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 9. Qh5+ {[%emt 0:00:04]} g6 {
>[%emt 0:00:00]} 10. Qh4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} c6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 11. dxe4 {
>[%emt 0:00:04]} cxd5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 12. exd5 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nc2+ {
>[%emt 0:00:00]} 13. Kd1 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nxa1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 14. Qd4 {
>[%emt 0:00:03]} Rg8 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 15. d6 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Bxd6 {
>[%eval 186,13] [%emt 0:29:41]} 16. Qxd6 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Qe7 {
>[%eval 191,12] [%emt 0:01:10]} 17. Qd5 {(Lf4) [%emt 0:00:05]} Rf8 {
>[%eval 565,13] [%emt 0:11:30]} 18. Bb5 {[%emt 0:00:38]} Nc2 {
>[%eval 562,12] [%emt 0:00:16]} 19. Kxc2 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 1-0
>
>If you look at when it left book, and check the opening references, you'll see
>that it willingly entered a known trap in the Belgrade Gambit analyzed by Keres
>about 50 years ago, and is immediately lost upon exiting book. How can you claim
>there is no need for an alternative book?
Because ALL other progs have such holes in their opening books.
>Two more examples I can recall -- Hiarcs as Black, 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 Nc6 3.Nf3 Be7?.
>The program must have left book at move 2 or 3, because the only reasonable
>followup to 2...Nc6 is 3...e5. Now the Chigorin French with 2.Qe2 isn't wildly
>popular or anything, but omitting it entirely from the book is inexcusable, and
>Hiarcs lost horribly because of this.
Sorry, don't know what you are talking about. The line above in the Hiarcs *8*
opening book gives 2...c5 with 100%.
>Especially when you consider all the
>weirdness that DOES make it into the book, like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6
>4.Bc4?!, which Hiarcs played in another game, when Black can just answer
>4...Nf6, and be playing a Two Knights Defense with the extra tempo ...a6 thrown
>in, so has probably already equalized.
What? 4.Bc4? In which book? Hiarcs *8* book has 4.Ba4 100%.
>Then today, I saw Hiarcs as Black had played 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4
>Qc7, and was thrown out of book by 5.Nb5, even though this reply had been played
>in at least one master level game before. Why include a trick line like 4...Qc7
>(because that's all it is) in the book to have it exit at move 5, thus saving no
>time on the clock versus the opponent?
Sorry again, 4...Qc7? Where does this come from. Here in my Hiarcs 8 book there
is 4...Nc6 and 4...Nf6 for active play.
>This book seems just dreadful to me, and if I owned Hiarcs (fortunately, I held
>off, pending reviews), I probably would spend the countless hours necessary to
>download the Lunsen book, since anything else would have to be better, possibly
>even not using a book at all, which would be interesting to test.
>
>Regards,
>Vine Smith
I have no idea where you got all those crappy lines from (except the Belgrade),
but so far neither my results nor the games I have seen on my own make me think
that the book is crap.
www.harald-faber.de
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.