Author: odell hall
Date: 08:55:57 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1998 at 07:47:58, Albert Silver wrote: >On November 09, 1998 at 02:58:55, odell hall wrote: > >>Hi CCC >> >> A few days ago I posted a victory against hiarcs 6 at 40/2hrs, my uscf rating >>is 1882. I Felt personally that something was wrong with my machine or hash >>tables (cyrix233 16MB). A few of you responded that basically I was lucky >>because i got hiarcs in an anti computer type of position. I was ready to write >>off my victory as due to these very reasons, until I played hiarcs again >>today!!. First let me say that Prior to purchasing hiarcs I basically trained >>exlusively with the rebel programs. Out of the last three years and hundreds of >>games I only mananaged One win! against rebel8 and no wins against rebel9!. Yet >>I managed to defeat hiarcs once and draw in a won position without one week!! >>Either hiarcs is an incredibly weak program or I have become a grandmaster >>overnight. Let me say that I possess no bias at all against hiarcs in fact I >>just one week ago praised the program all over the newgroups. The below game in >>another upset, although I did not win this game(was a draw) the point is that a >>1882 should never have gotten such a position against a sopposed 2500! Yet I >>hear praise about hiarcs6 so-called positional play! 12..0-0-0 ?? was just >>lousy. This game also illustrates how much I need to work on my own game as I >>should have easily won this. >> >> >>[Event "Match 2"] >>[Site "OK City"] >>[Date "1998.11.09"] >>[Round "?"] >>[White "Hiarcs6 P233 16MB"] >>[Black "O.Hall Game/60"] >>[Result "1/2-1/2"] >>[WhiteElo "2545"] >>[BlackElo "1882"] >>[ECO "A58"] >> >>1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5 b5 4. cxb5 a6 5. bxa6 g6 6. Nf3 Bxa6 7. Nc3 Bg7 >>8. e4 Bxf1 9. Rxf1 d6 10. Bg5 O-O 11. Qc2 Nbd7 12. O-O-O Qa5 13. Nd2 Rfb8 >>14. f3 > >Though the score given is the same, my Hiarcs chooses 14.Nb3 >> Qb4 15. Nb3 c4 16. Nd4 Ne5 17. Nc6 Nd3+ 18. Rxd3 cxd3 19. Qd2 Qc4 >>20. Nxb8 Rxb8 21. Rd1 > >My Hiarcs prefers 21.b3 > >> Qb4 22. g4 > >Again, I realize that my processor is faster (K6-2/350), but here it only goes >for 22. g4 for 31 seconds then it goes for 22. f4 and after 3"16 it changes to >22.Re1. At 40/2h I would have thought that yours would reach the same >conclusion. > >> Nd7 23. f4 Nc5 24. e5 f6 25. Bh4 dxe5 >>26. Rf1 > >Here, my Hiarcs agrees with yours but only after 3"20! Just the opposite of the >previous note. > >> e4 27. Re1 f5 28. Bxe7 Qc4 29. Bxc5 Qxc5 30. Kd1 > >Here it *never* chooses 30.Kd1 which it believes to be inferior to 30.gxf5 > >> Rc8 31. gxf5 gxf5 >>32. Re3 Kh8 33. Rg3 > >Again, my Hiarcs only prefers the text for 21 seconds opting then for 33. h3 and >after 1"28 33. h4. > >> Bxc3 34. Qxc3+ Qxc3 35. bxc3 Rxc3 36. d6 Rc8 37. a4 >>Rd8 38. Rg5 e3 39. Rxf5 Rxd6 40. Re5 e2+ 41. Kd2 Kg7 42. a5 Kf6 43. a6 >>Rxa6 44. Kxd3 Ra3+ 45. Kxe2 Ra2+ 46. Ke3 Rxh2 1/2-1/2 > >As you can see, it is difficult to comment on the strength of Hiarcs, as yours >doesn't seem to be the same one I have. The inconsistencies are just too many. > >I published the results of the Hiarcs 6 module on my previous K6/233 on the >Louguet II test some time ago. Try running yours through it and publish the >results, I'll then put the ones I got then alongside and we can compare. > > Albert Silver Hi, Albert Game two was not at 40/2 but rather Game in an hour!! Which is still a long time control. I took komputer Korner's advice this time and set the style of play on agressive! My processor and mother board are fine because I am getting close to 100,000 nodes per second on rebel 10, with a benchmark of 2511, so I know my computer is running fast. Maybe I don't have enough hash tables for my hiarcs6 , also I might add I don't have the hiarcs module but the regular full featured program
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.