Author: Albert Silver
Date: 04:47:58 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
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
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.