Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 13:46:48 07/02/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 1999 at 01:11:48, Steve Lopez wrote: >On July 01, 1999 at 22:28:02, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >>I posted the move order for you to evaluate - did you? > >Yes, and did so in another post in another thread, after Terry was good enough >to send me the correct move order. The Sicilian line you keep talking about is >*not* in Hiarcs' original opening book. If it is in yours, ********************************** Take a look at Shep's posting of a match between Hiarcs and Fritz where Hiarcs plays an opening out of book! The Sicilian line that my Hiarcs played is not in the Hiarcs book you say. Hmmm. I must have a defective program. Tell you what I'm going to do, I'm going to install the program again and see if the line is there. I don't know how Terry determined that line was not in Hiarcs book. *************************************************** you somehow added it, >regardless of your protestations to the contrary. You mentioned a move being >shown in red -- the original opening book ends three or four ply before that >move. How, then, did that line get in there? Who put it in there -- to use >another of your favorite expressions: you? Me? The man in *************** I certainly didn't put it there. ************************************* the moon? > >>In my two games at 40/2 against Hiarcs, I have a plus score from the opening on. >>My point of posting the two openings played by Hiarcs was to show how it can >>play bad openings. > >I have yet to see the correct move order for the Bishop's Opening game. The line ************************************************* The correct line for the Bishop's opening is: 1.e4...e5 2.Bc4...Nf6 3.Nf3...Nxe4 4.Nc3...Nxc3 5.dxc3...f6 6.Nh4...g6 7.f4...c6 8.f5...d5 9.fxg6 This is how the game progressed. I am playing Black, and Hiarcs is playing White. Hiarcs made the moves as White all by itself. Do you like Hiarcs position? ******************************************************* >you posted in another thread contains the illegal White move f5-f6.> >>The two games are not finished but it is not very relevant >>because I am not a Grandmaster. If I can get the better of Hiarcs in some >>openings, something is wrong with the opening book - and that is my point! Do >>you understand what I am talking about? > >Yes, but my point is that in the Sicilian game, the line you quote as being part >of the opening book is not in there. Terry concurs. >******************************* So Terry is now the official tester for Hiarcs...hmmm. Why don't you test it out? Don't you have the Hiarcs program? ******************************************************** >>I notice an angry tone in your message and probably it is in fact due to my >>hasty reply to you. > >No, it's due to this repeated "Confusionbase" stuff. You ************************************************** Yes, I have used that description for good reason. Your loyalty is not without understanding. However, my loyalty is to the consumer. I do not think it is correct to put out a product with the wrong manual, incorrect formula for hash tables, and the inability to register the program. I wonder what "Consumer Reports" what have to say about this situation. :-))) ********************************************************* called me on the >telephone *repeatedly* with the same three questions: opening book choice (which >one is "best), hash table size, and tablebase use. All have been addressed in >T-Notes. I stated in a past issue (I forget the date, but I think it was the >9/27/98 issue) that Hiarcs6 uses only about two-thirds of the available hash >tables when the Fritz formula was used. I see nothing to indicate that it's any >different with Hiarcs7.32, and comments I've seen in CCC (and elsewhere on the >Interrant) indicate that this is indeed the case. I've also not received any >feedback to the contrary from ChessBase in Germany (and believe me, they *do* >correct me when I'm wrong and I *do* print their corrections in later issues of >T-Notes). ******************************************** Yes, I called you on the phone, and contacted ChessBase, and contacted you. I kept doing the above to try and get answers that were factual rather than speculation. ************************************************** > >The fact is, Mel, while there is some "confusion" about a couple of the features >in Hiarcs7.32, the Fritz manual supplied on the CD is sufficient for explaining >the vast majority of the features in the program since the interfaces are >identical. The remaining features are covered in the Hiarcs7.32 booklet that's >packaged in the jewel case. Your near-constant sarcastic characterization of the >company as being slipshod and uncaring is grating to say the least, especially >in light of the *hours* that you and I have spent on the phone and the >additional *hours* I've spent in e-mail exchanges with you in trying to answer >your questions. It's *doubly* grating in light of the tendency you have to play >"both ends against the middle". After I would answer one of your questions, you >would e-mail Andre to ask it again. If he gave you a different response, you >would contact me again to tell me that the response differed. I would tell you >to listen to Andre's suggestion instead (since he has direct face-to-face >contact with the programmers) and you would respond that I originally told you >something different than what Andre said. Then, when I would tell you that I >sometimes base my replies on evidence from other users that's presented in CCC >and rec.games.chess.computer, you would tell me that this "isn't very >scientific" -- yet you later had no problems in telling me that I was wrong in >one of my responses to you because "so-and-so in CCC" said something different. **************************************** No, I never said you were wrong. I said there was disagreement as to the answers I received from you and ChessBase. How is the consumer supposed to know who to believe when it appears there is disagreement among the company's own people. *****************************************************> >I think we've done a lot to attempt to alleviate your concerns about the >program. I'm sorry that the answers have not been to your liking, but I've given >you all of the information I have. The main problem I have with our >phone/e-mail/CCC exchanges is that you keep "moving the goalposts" -- the recent >posts on resetting the opening book weights being a case in point. You asked a >question, I answered it (as well as gave a followup or two to other posters on >the same subject), got a "thank you" from another CCC reader, and your reply was >"thanks for what?" I'm sorry you didn't like/understand the answer, but that >doesn't change the fact that it *is* the answer. > >So the fact is that from my point of view your questions can't be answered to >your satisfaction. That's fine and I understand this. ither you don't >understand the answers or they're not complete/accurate/authoritative enough for >you. I freely admit that I'm not the divine oracle of ChessBase and that my >answers to customers are sometimes not sufficient or correct. But in light of >the sheer amount of time and effort I've spent in attempting to answer your >inquiries, I find your characterization of ChessBase as uncaring to be grossly >unfair. ********************************************* It is unfair to put the wrong manual, incorrect formula for hash tables, and inability to register the program, and have evasive answers to questons regarding hash tables for the program the company is selling. That's unfair! *******************************************************> >Consequently, my only recommendation to you at this point is for you to return >the product for a refund since it evidently doesn't meet your needs and >requirements. >************************************************* My problem is not so much with the program as it is with the company distributing it. You can buy a car and like it, but if the manual doesn't explain how to use the car properly, the problem is the company. ****************************************** >> I didn't have much time to reply and so quickly composed the >>message while frustrated at your response. I get a lot of frustration from >>ChessBase. You recommended you know who to ask questions...well...I told him of >>my problem registering Hiarcs and he asked for my address. I sent him my address >>and haven't heard anything in over a week. > >I can't answer for Andre, nor would I presume to. However, *my* questions to >Andre and the programmers have also gone unanswered, so my assumption is that >they're presently heavily involved with the various computer-computer and >computer-human events presently being held. > >>Also, what about the formula for hash >>tables on the Hiarcs program? Is it correct? I asked you know who and he said >>that Hiarcs doesn't need as much as Fritz - this is an answer? > >It is. See above. >************************** I know it does not need as much as Fritz. That is not the issue. The question is what is the formula to give Hiarcs the proper amount of hash tables? ChessBase has told me both that the formula is correct and then also said Hiarcs doesn't need the same amount. This is certainly a contradictory statement. Why should there be this confusion? In all this time nobody has been able to get this information from Mr. Uniacke? Why is the wrong formula on the CD? And you wonder why people are confused about the program? Or do you still think it's only me? ************************************************ >>Did anyone from >>ChessBase use the Hiarcs program before it was released? > >Again, I can't answer for the programmers. However, my information in T-Notes is >based *heavily* upon my own personal experience and experimentation with the >programs (e.g. I'm not *fed* the information by the programmers -- I discover >most of it myself and when I'm wrong, they correct me). Mathias Feist reads >T-Notes religiously. If I write something and don't receive a correction from >him, then it follows that the information is correct. > >>Do you see a Chevrolet >>manual in a Ford? > >You make remarks like this and then wonder why my last reply seemed a bit curt? >**************************************** Is that right? If the shoe fits, wear it. ******************************************* >>Why do consumers have to be running around with their tail >>between their legs trying to get answers to the program? > >Sure, Mel, and I guess the *hours* of phone calls you made to me (at ChessBase's >expense) don't count for much in the area of customer service. >******************************************* The valiant attempts of answering questions without regard for fact does not impress me. ******************************************************* >>You're a nice guy, Steve, and I appreciate the work you do to help people. >>However, you do work for ConfusionBase, err, I mean ChessBase, > >See above regarding "Confusionbase". > >>Do you or anyone at ChessBase know the hash table >>formula for Hiarcs? Hmmm? > >See above. Two-thirds of the Fritz formula. 66.67%. Yes, this is from personal >experience -- it did not come straight from the lips of M**************************************** Personal experience...that's nice. So we really still don't have a definitive answer. Perhaps when Hiarcs 8.32 comes out we will know all. **************************************************** ark Uniacke. *HOWEVER* >at the 40/2 time controls you're playing at, I can *guarantee* you that Hiarcs >is filling the hash tables, no matter what size you have them set. > >>All this has gotten off the issue I raised about some opening book lines in >>Hiarcs. If you like, I can e-mail the present position where I have a plus score >>in both games due to bad opening lines by Hiarcs. > >You can do that or else post them here. I've already addressed the Sicilian line >in another thread. The Bishop's Opening post I saw contained an illegal move. >************************* See above - there is no illegal move. The only thing illegal here is the wrong manual and the wrong formula for hash tables!!! You can criticize me but you won't criticize ChessBase. Again, I am a consumer who is concerned with seeing products put out with respect for the consumer. I guess you can say I am a consumer advocate. In the words of Howard Cossel (Cossel may be mispelled) I call it like it is. ************************************************ >-- Steve Lopez
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.