Author: Chessfun
Date: 21:30:49 09/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2000 at 23:01:39, Terry Ripple wrote:
>On September 26, 2000 at 04:47:36, Chessfun wrote:
>
>>On September 26, 2000 at 04:16:22, Terry Ripple wrote:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>I have Hiarcs7.32 with the upgrade patch for it's book and Hiarc's will never
>>>play 1.d4 d5 (2.Bg5) on its second move with white. I looked in hiarcs book and
>>>observed that this move is there but the probability to play it is "0".
>>
>>
>>Sorry but with normal book settings as loaded, the possibility is 1.1%.
>>not 0. Plus in the specific game you refer to game 3 Hiarcs claims itself
>>to be winning by 0.16 out of book.
>>
>>
>>>Also, i noticed some of the games Hiarcs is coming out of the opening poorly,so
>>>it must be its lousey book that is the blame for its poor play in those games!
>>
>>
>>You didn't look close enough, Hiarcs comes out of book better in a majority of
>>games.
>>
>>Here is what Hiarcs thinks of the 11 positions after book.
>>
>> Score Hiarcs W/L
>>[Annotator "-0.10"] White Losing
>>[Annotator "-0.20"] Black Winning
>>[Annotator "0.16"] White Winning
>>[Annotator "-0.76"] Black Winning big
>>[Annotator "0.12"] White Winning
>>[Annotator "0.19"] Black Losing
>>[Annotator "-0.21"] White Losing
>>[Annotator "0.45"] Black Losing
>>[Annotator "0.65"] White Winning Big
>>[Annotator "-0.03"] Black Winning
>>[Annotator "0.41"] White Winning
>>
>>So we have Hiarcs +7 -4 most of these are minimal.
>>The two biggest margins out of book more than +0.5 went
>>to Hiarcs games 4 and 9 and Hiarcs lost 4 and drew 9.
>>
>>I see nothing here that indicates that Hiarcs lost due to book.
>>
>>
>>>Then another point is that almost anything can happen in just a few games played
>>
>>If you read my original statement "Regardless of the time controls/number
>>of games etc the score is very impressive". I agree anything can happen in a few
>>games but in this case this is what happened.
>>
>>
>>Thanks.
>>Sarah.
>
> Hi Sarah,
>I believe that you made a mistake on game 4 as Hiarcs lost BIG with -0.76 coming
>out of the opening and Lost the game!
No I am right. Here is the header.
[Event "Blitz:60'/Celeron"]
[Site "Scarb"]
[Date "2000.09.25"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Rebel Tiger 12.92 Beta"]
[Black "Hiarcs 7.32"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A11"]
[Annotator "-0.76"]
The annotator score is -0.76 in Hiarcs favor. Hiarcs was black.
If you look at Hiarcs evals in the game you can see it easier.
This is the finish of the game. 54... Nd6 {6.66/10 118} 55. Rfh3
{Resigns} 1-0 see how the score now is in whites favour.
Did you look at that position?.
You can also proof it if you like by taking the point they leave book
4...Nf6 which Hiarcs scores as -0.76 to black then play Qb3 for white
giving the queen away and the score goes to -12.16.
>So my point was that it wasn't favorible coming out of the opening for Hiarcs
>with a negative score because with white choosing the proper lines of play
>should hardly ever come out of the opening with a negative score to start! And
And as shown above it don't.
>even playing with black the score coming out of the opening should be only a
>very small plus at must for White and certain lines of play should give black
>equality with proper play.
And it is only a small plus in most cases but IMO two which were in Hiarcs
favor.
>And the second move 2.Bg5 you say is 1.1% is correct, i over looked this, sorry!
NP and thanks.
>In game 1 Hiarcs came out of opening at -0.10 and Lost!
Correct it lost. But seriously you can't take a score like -0.10
and say see this is proof. Especially when Hiarcs had 7 out of 11
positive scores out of book and 6 more than -0.10. Also in this
same game a couple of moves later Hiarcs scored as 0.00 so even
were this opening 0.10 advantage significant it was gone two moves
later, then Hiarcs proceeded to lose from a toitally equal position.
> " " 4 " " " " " " -0.76 " Lost Big Time!
Lost big time yes, but as proved above it is black lead out of book
not negative. Hiarcs lead was eaten away and by move 10 it is scoring
as equal.
> " " 7 " " " " " " -0.21 " Lost!
Again how can you throw this as evidence of book when Hiarcs came out
of book 7 times with the following scores score in it's favor; And this
score really is so minimal that IMO it's insignificant. And once again
also in this game by move 25 Hiarcs is again scoring as 0.00. So again
it lost from an equal position.
[Annotator "-0.20"] Black Winning
[Annotator "0.16"] White Winning
[Annotator "-0.76"] Black Winning big
[Annotator "0.12"] White Winning
[Annotator "0.65"] White Winning Big
[Annotator "-0.03"] Black Winning
[Annotator "0.41"] White Winning
>I don't mean to give you a hard time about this as this was not my intention at
>all, but was just to give you a point of view. I appreciate all the great
>testing that you perform and are kind enough to share with all of us here.
>Please keep up the great testing and hope this clears things up. I also like to
>run tests of the various engines because it is a fun thing to do and really
>don't care if engine A beats engine B, but i like all the analysis that comes
>from these games as it gives me some ideas to use in my own games against human
>opponents.
Your not giving me a hard time. You are entitled to your opinion.
If my statements have not convinced you that these losses were not
caused by book, then that's fine with me.
I don't play favorites when it comes to results, I try to look at them
as objectively as possible but I honestly cannot see these losses in any
way as caused by book as I have tried to the best of my ability to prove.
Sarah.
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.