Author: Mark Young
Date: 17:04:03 07/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 1999 at 19:55:57, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >As you requested I am giving you a few examples of what I call bad play by >Hiarcs 7.32. > >White: Hiarcs 7.32 >Black: Schwartz > >Time Control: 40/2 > >Place: Schwartz's Den > >Date: Who cares? > >White to move. > >Position: > >White: Kg1, Ne4, Rb5, Pawns at g3 and h2. > >Black: Kh8, Rc2, Pawns at a5, b4, g7, h6. > >Hiarcs played 1.h4 (a bad move in my opinion - Nc5 would have been better). The >score was Hiarcs up about a pawn. 1...a4 2.Rxb4...a3 3.Rb1...a2 4.Ra1...Rb2 >5.Nc3...Rb3 6.Rxp...RxN. The score now is about even! Both Fritz 5.32 and Rebel >10 selected Nc5 instead of Hiarcs h4. The move by Hiarcs h4 as you can follow >the sequence with the exchange of pawn for knight leads to a dead draw. Nc5 >gives White excellent chances for a win. > >Now, example Number 2. > >White: Hiarcs 7.32 >Black: Schwartz > >Time Control: 40/2 > >Date and Place not important. :) > >This is the famous Bishop's opening I posted a while back with only the first 8 >moves or so and stated that Hiarcs had played badly but I was refuted by people >I shall leave nameless. This Bishop's opening transposes into Petrov's Defence. > >The move list follows with some important notations by me. Important? Ehh... > >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...Bg7 10.Bd3...e4 11.Be2...Qb6! 12.Bh5...Kd8 13.Now here Hiarcs >originally played a4 and after making the move its score went way down to a >minus. Nice guy that I am, I allowed Hiarcs to replay the move to see if it >would again choose a4. Next time around it played Rf1 with a better score. I >decided to let Hiarcs replay it again to see what it would do. It again selected >Rf1 which I would certainly say is better than a4 and allowed Hiarcs to keep a >better score at this point. However, a4 was indeed a bad move! There's more to >see - let's continue. 13.Rf1...Na6 14.Rb1...Nc7 15.h3...Be6 16.Bf4...Bd7 >17.Be2...Ne6 18.Bg3...hxg6 19.Nxg6...Re8 20.Qd2? (what kind of move is >this?)...e3 21.Qc1...Ng5 22.Bf4 (Hiarcs had around a +0.50 at this move)...c5 >23.Nh4 and after making this move very quickly the score went to a minus -0.48 >for Hiarcs. > >Now, Hiarcs was claiming a plus score the whole game while when I checked the >evaluation score on Fritz 5.32 and Rebel 10, they both had me with a plus score. >I used those programs to evaluate because I could not see where Hiarcs should >have had a plus score at all. You can look at this position and decide for >yourself if Hiarcs is as strong as all the hype. I am not saying it's worse than >Fritz or better than Fritz - all I'm saying is I don't think it's the kind of >program that I and some others expected. I hope I'm not misunderstood here. I >believe that yes Hiarcs 7.32 is a good program...but great it is not, sad to >say. > >The hardware used for Hiarcs 7.32 is an AMD K6 400 MHz processor with 192 MB of >RAM, and I gave Hiarcs 7.32 64 megs of RAM as you once suggested to me. > >The hardware for Schwartz was a loaded shotgun. :) > >Regards, >Mel Thank you Mel for posting the positions of interest. If you can I would also like to see the whole game score. ps. you can use the setup board to copy a fen and past it on CCC.
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.