Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 22:52:02 09/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2000 at 00:30:49, Chessfun wrote:
>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.
> Sarah, i thought that Hiarcs was white as the score always reflects on white which shows clearly that white is on a low of -0.76 so i please forgive my mistake! I just very quickly looked over the games after a late night of work.
Thankyou for pointing me in the right direction! Keep up the good work.
>
>>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.
==============================================================================
I personally played over the games and agree that the book didn't affect Hiarcs
in the cases you mentioned as Hiarcs showed equality where there was a negative
coming out of the opening!
It looks like Tiger is a very fine fighter and it will take the new Hiarcs 8 to
possibly have a chance against this beast!
Regards,
Terry
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.