Author: Vine Smith
Date: 00:42:26 05/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2002 at 18:21:48, Harald Faber wrote:
>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
Well, I'm not going to dredge through the archives for these games with the
lines you can't find in the book, because it would serve no purpose. You would
conclude that they were either false, or not played with the default book
anyway. (I can recall the 4...Qc7 was posted by Chris Taylor, who was testing
Hiarcs versus Genius 3(!), and it was the second game he had conducted.)
But I think I might have an idea -- rather looking in the Hiarcs 8 book, just
try playing 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 against it in a game. I think when you look at the
book with the Chessbase GUI, it understands the book format, but when Hiarcs
looks at the book during the game, it doesn't see the same thing. This would
explain everything -- it's not the book that's faulty, but the conversion from
the original DOS format (I gathered that this conversion had been done from a
post of yours further up). In another post, I read that Hiarcs 7.32 had much the
same problem in the first few months after its release due to an incorrect
conversion of its book into Chessbase format. If you can confirm this, someone
should bring this to Chessbase's attention.
Regards,
Vine Smith
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.