Author: Mark R. Anderson
Date: 14:04:30 03/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
Roy,
Yes, on one of the fast new Palms (like the T5), Hiarcs is definitely a killer.
I can't even come close to nicking mine for a draw, and I've seen it tear up
masters. They just shake their heads and can't believe a little PDA is kicking
their a** ... it's funny to see. I definitely have to "dumb down" mine ...
thank God for the elo-setting feature. Hiarcs 9.5 is well-optimized for the
fast processor, and is of course a good program, both tactically and
positionally. I am certain the T5 with Hiarcs could beat a Tasc machine. Good
job, Mr. Uniacke!
Mark Anderson
On March 16, 2005 at 03:06:32, Roy Brunjes wrote:
>
>This game was played between a Palm T5 416 MHz using Hiarcs 9 with permanent
>brain off against Fritz 5.32 using Shredder8.ctg and Fritz was thinking on the
>opponent's time.
>
>It is sometimes amazing to see how far handheld playing strength has advanced
>lately:
>
>[Event "10'/40+10'/40+10'/40"]
>[Site "MyTown"]
>[Date "????.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Fritz 5.32"]
>[Black "Hiarcs 9 on Palm T5"]
>[Result "0-1"]
>[PlyCount "136"]
>[TimeControl "40/600:40/600:40/600"]
>
>{256MB, Shredder8.ctg, Centrino 1.8 GHz} 1. d4 {0} e6 {6} 2. Nf3 {0} d5 {(c5) 6
>} 3. Bf4 {0} Bd6 {(Nf6) 4} 4. e3 {0} Bxf4 {3} 5. exf4 {0} Qd6 {3} 6. Qd2 {
>-0.09/13 11} Nf6 {5} 7. Nc3 {0.00/12 25} a6 {(0-0) 8} 8. O-O-O {0.03/13 16} Bd7
>{(Nbd7) 12} 9. g4 {-0.12/12 25} Nxg4 {(Bb5) 28} 10. Rg1 {0.03/13 14} f5 {
>(Nh6) 27} 11. h3 {0.47/14 23} Nf6 {11} 12. Rxg7 {0.41/13 1} Nh5 {20} 13. Rg5 {
>0.59/13 17} Nxf4 {20} 14. Ne5 {0.72/13 0} Ng6 {11} 15. Nxg6 {0.50/12 2} hxg6 {8
>} 16. Rxg6 {0.47/12 5} Nc6 {28} 17. Qg5 {0.56/13 0} Qe7 {(Ne7) 22} 18. Rg8+ {
>0.47/13 35} Rxg8 {11} 19. Qxg8+ {0.41/13 0} Qf8 {5} 20. Qxf8+ {0.28/13 26} Kxf8
>{4} 21. Ne2 {0.19/12 14} Ke7 {(Kf7) 16} 22. Nf4 {0.34/12 21} Kf6 {(Rg8) 18} 23.
>c3 {0.28/12 24} Rh8 {10} 24. Bg2 {0.16/12 16} Ne7 {12} 25. b3 {0.19/12 13} Rh4
>{11} 26. Nd3 {0.00/13 17} Ng6 {12} 27. a4 {-0.12/12 3} Nf4 {14} 28. Nxf4 {
>-0.28/13 6} Rxf4 {8} 29. Rd2 {-0.25/14 13} b6 {(Be8) 13} 30. Kc2 {0.00/13 23}
>Rh4 {(Be8) 14} 31. Rd1 {-0.47/13 44} a5 {12} 32. Kd3 {-0.62/12 6} c5 {(e5) 6}
>33. Kc2 {-0.81/13 57} Bc6 {28} 34. dxc5 {-0.47/13 0} bxc5 {8} 35. c4 {
>-0.53/13 22} Ke5 {9} 36. Rd2 {-0.37/11 4} Kd6 {(f4) 9} 37. Kd1 {-0.97/13 19} d4
>{14} 38. f3 {-1.28/15 13} e5 {(Rh5) 15} 39. Rf2 {-1.25/14 22} Ke6 {(Rh7) 15}
>40. Bf1 {-1.31/13 13} e4 {(Rh8) 10} 41. Rg2 {-1.00/13 15} Rf4 {(Kf6) 26} 42.
>Rg6+ {-0.97/13 13} Kd7 {14} 43. Rg7+ {-1.09/13 4} Kd6 {(Kd8) 16} 44. Rg6+ {
>-0.97/13 13} Kc7 {19} 45. Rg7+ {-1.25/14 0} Bd7 {25} 46. Rg3 {-1.09/14 0} e3 {
>(Kd6) 25} 47. Bd3 {-0.97/14 28} Rh4 {(Kd6) 26} 48. Rg7 {-1.16/14 27} Kd6 {22}
>49. Ke1 {-1.12/14 0} Rh6 {19} 50. f4 {-1.28/15 0} Rh4 {23} 51. Rg6+ {-1.56/15 0
>} Kc7 {44} 52. Ra6 {-1.69/15 0} Rxh3 {12} 53. Rxa5 {-1.75/14 10} Rh1+ {(Kb6) 25
>} 54. Ke2 {-1.81/14 21} Kb6 {(Rh2+) 24} 55. Ra8 {-2.31/13 20} Rh2+ {24} 56. Ke1
>{-2.81/14 0} Rd2 {(Bc6) 20} 57. Be2 {-2.94/14 31} d3 {(Bc6) 24} 58. a5+ {
>-2.53/14 45} Kb7 {23} 59. Bf3+ {-2.66/14 6} Kc7 {19} 60. Rg8 {-2.66/14 0} Rf2 {
>27} 61. Bh5 {-2.72/14 0} Rxf4 {26} 62. Rg3 {-3.22/14 0} d2+ {(Re4) 24} 63. Ke2
>{-3.56/15 25} Rd4 {32} 64. Rg1 {-3.87/16 0} f4 {20} 65. a6 {-4.16/14 40} Kb6 {
>17} 66. a7 {-4.72/13 25} Kxa7 {19} 67. Kd1 {-5.53/14 8} Kb6 {(Bc6) 13} 68. Rg7
>{-6.44/13 28} Ka5 {(Be8) 20} 0-1
>
>Of course one game means next to nothing, but it is interesting to see that
>given the right situation, even a Palm-based unit can overcome a huge hardware
>edge over a well known program like Fritz 5.32.
>
>Roy
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.