Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:24:10 07/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 1999 at 23:59:39, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote:
>
>On July 23, 1999 at 23:25:30, Terry Ripple wrote:
>
>>On July 23, 1999 at 22:44:48, Mark Young wrote:
>>
>>>rnbk3r/pp4bp/1qp2pP1/3p3B/4p2N/2P5/PPP3PP/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 1
>>>
>>>I have saved a opening position in Hiarcs 7.32 after the "weak move" a4 played
>>>by Hiarcs 7.32, just to see if other programs could beat Hiarcs 7.32 after the
>>>blunder move of 13. a4. As you can see both junior and Fritz think they have the
>>>better position, only Hiarcs 7.32 understands it has the better position for
>>>start to finish. And it crushes both programs. If a4 is a blunder it is not easy
>>>to refute.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Event "Blitz:25'"]
>>>[Site "?"]
>>>[Date "1999.07.23"]
>>>[Round "1"]
>>>[White "Hiarcs 7.32"]
>>>[Black "Junior 5.0"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[ECO "C42"]
>>>[PlyCount "101"]
>>>
>>>{W=8.7 ply, B=13.6ply} 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.
>>>a4 {Both last book move} 13... Be6 {-0.03/14 77} 14. a5 {0.85/8 32} 14... Qc5 {
>>>0.14/14 51} 15. Qe2 {(Rf1) 0.86/8 30} 15... Na6 {(Qc4) -0.04/14 53} 16. Be3 {
>>>(g3) 1.19/8 25} 16... Qb5 {(Qd6) 0.10/14 39} 17. Qxb5 {(0-0) 1.28/9 43} 17...
>>>cxb5 {0.04/13 10} 18. Be2 {1.16/10 50} 18... Nc7 {0.47/16 73} 19. O-O {
>>>(0-0-0) 1.16/9 18} 19... hxg6 {(Kd7) 0.46/15 33} 20. Nxg6 {1.25/10 35} 20...
>>>Rh7 {(Rg8) 0.55/15 42} 21. Nf4 {(Rad1) 1.37/9 31} 21... Kd7 {0.69/15 40} 22.
>>>Nxe6 {1.32/9 37} 22... Kxe6 {0.86/14 43} 23. Bg4+ {1.23/9 39} 23... Kf7 {
>>>1.01/15 55} 24. Rad1 {1.32/9 31} 24... Bh6 {(Bf8) 0.73/14 44} 25. Bd4 {
>>>1.80/9 30} 25... Bg5 {0.90/14 56} 26. Be5 {(Rf5) 1.57/9 50} 26... Kg8 {
>>>(Rg7) 1.05/13 76} 27. Bf5 {1.91/9 28} 27... Re7 {(Rg7) 1.19/14 38} 28. Bxc7 {
>>>1.97/9 27} 28... Rxc7 {1.18/13 20} 29. Rxd5 {1.97/10 27} 29... e3 {1.25/14 54}
>>>30. Rxb5 {1.97/9 26} 30... Re7 {(Re8) 1.26/12 23} 31. Re1 {(Bd3) 1.96/9 25}
>>>31... Rd8 {(Rae8) 1.39/14 28} 32. Bd3 {(Rb4) 2.10/8 17} 32... Rd6 {
>>>(Rde8) 1.62/14 36} 33. g3 {2.31/9 24} 33... Bh6 {1.74/14 47} 34. Kg2 {
>>>(h4) 2.41/9 23} 34... Kg7 {(Kf8) 1.75/14 23} 35. h4 {2.47/9 13} 35... Red7 {
>>>(Rde6) 1.80/14 18} 36. Kf3 {(Re2) 2.55/8 15} 36... Rf7 {(Rd5) 1.86/14 19} 37.
>>>g4 {(Rb4) 2.97/9 24} 37... a6 {(Kh8) 2.11/12 15} 38. Rf5 {3.33/9 21} 38... Rd8
>>>{2.43/14 14} 39. Rf1 {(Ke2) 3.83/9 21} 39... Kf8 {(Rff8) 3.42/14 21} 40. Ke2 {
>>>5.14/9 20} 40... Bg7 {3.81/14 13} 41. g5 {5.23/9 18} 41... Bh8 {3.87/13 26} 42.
>>>Be4 {(Kxe3) 5.23/8 14} 42... Rd6 {3.65/12 16} 43. h5 {(Kxe3) 5.13/8 25} 43...
>>>Rh7 {(Re7) 3.93/13 56} 44. h6 {5.60/8 26} 44... Re7 {4.19/12 17} 45. Kxe3 {
>>>5.96/8 17} 45... b5 {(Rde6) 4.24/13 16} 46. axb6 {(g6) 6.41/8 14} 46... Rxb6 {
>>>4.72/12 19} 47. g6 {6.41/8 17} 47... Rbe6 {(Re8) 4.97/13 17} 48. R1f4 {
>>>(g7+) 6.90/8 16} 48... Rd7 {(Rd6) 5.05/12 19} 49. Rc5 {(g7+) 7.42/8 8} 49...
>>>Re8 {5.76/13 11} 50. Rc6 {7.37/8 18} 50... Kg8 {(Rde7) 6.01/12 7} 51. Rxa6 {
>>>(g7). adjud. 8.27/8 20} 1-0
>>>
>>>[Event "Blitz:25'"]
>>>[Site "?"]
>>>[Date "1999.07.23"]
>>>[Round "1"]
>>>[White "Hiarcs 7.32"]
>>>[Black "Fritz 5.00/16Bit"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[ECO "C42"]
>>>[PlyCount "83"]
>>>
>>>{W=6.3 ply, B=8.5ply} 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. a4
>>>{Both last book move} 13... Be6 {-0.53/11 60} 14. a5 {0.85/8 31} 14... Qc5 {
>>>-0.47/11 44} 15. Qe2 {(gxh7) 0.86/8 36} 15... Qd6 {(Qc4) -0.38/11 58} 16. O-O {
>>>1.13/8 43} 16... Nd7 {-0.88/10 31} 17. a6 {0.73/8 98} 17... bxa6 {
>>>(b5) -0.72/10 55} 18. Bf4 {0.83/7 84} 18... Ne5 {-0.69/10 52} 19. Rxa6 {
>>>0.95/7 33} 19... Bc8 {(Qc5+) -0.63/9 28} 20. Ra2 {(Raa1) 0.97/7 45} 20... a5 {
>>>(Qc5+) -0.53/9 47} 21. Rfa1 {0.98/7 30} 21... Qb8 {(Qc7) -0.44/8 35} 22. b3 {
>>>0.98/7 44} 22... Be6 {(Qc7) -0.56/8 33} 23. c4 {(b4) 0.90/7 74} 23... dxc4 {
>>>-0.41/8 44} 24. Qxe4 {(Rd1+) 0.91/6 26} 24... cxb3 {-0.13/8 42} 25. cxb3 {
>>>1.10/6 26} 25... Qb6+ {(hxg6) -0.28/8 39} 26. Be3 {1.15/7 42} 26... Qxb3 {
>>>-0.50/9 30} 27. Qd4+ {1.40/6 18} 27... Kc8 {(Bd7) -0.44/9 26} 28. Rxa5 {
>>>1.75/6 13} 28... Rxa5 {0.81/10 36} 29. Rxa5 {1.85/7 23} 29... hxg6 {
>>>(Qb8) 1.19/9 27} 30. Ra8+ {2.23/7 22} 30... Kc7 {2.03/11 34} 31. Ra7+ {
>>>(Qa7+) 5.30/7 22} 31... Kc8 {1.91/10 32} 32. Nxg6 {(Be2) 5.98/7 21} 32... Qb1+
>>>{3.66/9 31} 33. Bd1 {6.23/7 21} 33... Nf3+ {6.06/10 30} 34. gxf3 {9.89/7 20}
>>>34... Qxg6+ {7.75/9 23} 35. Kh1 {(Kf1) 12.20/8 20} 35... Qh5 {(Qb1) 10.84/9 17}
>>>36. Ra8+ {(Bf4) #10/5 5} 36... Kc7 {#6/9 4} 37. Bf4+ {#8/5 2} 37... Qe5 {#5/8 1
>>>} 38. Bxe5+ {#7/4 1} 38... fxe5 {#4/6 1} 39. Ra7+ {#4/4 0} 39... Kc8 {#3/5 1}
>>>40. Qd6 {#3/3 0} 40... Rxh2+ {#2/3 1} 41. Kxh2 {#4/1 0} 41... e4 {(Bh8) #1/1 0}
>>>42. Qc7# {#1/1 0} 1-0
>>-------
>>Hi Mark and Mel,
>> My Hiarcs7.32 shows a4 for 20 min. before i stopped it and it says =(0.20).
>>It was looking 11/30 at that point in its search.
>> I showed a friend of mine the position who is the Pennsylvania State Champ for
>>3 years in a row and he also likes a4 and agrees with Hiarcs analysis!!!
>>A big hand for Hiarcs!!!! GoGOGOOoooooo!!!!
>>-------
>>Terry
>
>Hello Terry,
>
>The game was 40/2. Hiarcs selected a4 and after making the move, the score
>dropped to a minus! Now, I let Hiarcs replay the move and it selected Rf1 with a
>plus score. Now, I again let it replay the move and again it selected Rf1.
>Obviously Hiarcs learning function would not let it select a4 again. I think you
>both are rooting so hard for Hiarcs that objectivity has become impossible. It
>doesn't matter what your friend likes; it matters what Hiarcs likes. And Hiarcs
>would not repeat a4 but only keep repeating Rf1. Now, if you and your friend
>think a4 is a good move, and Hiarcs changed its selection to Rf1, then how do
>you explain the reason Hiarcs would not repeat a4 but only insist on playing
>Rf1??
>
>Be objective.
Why is it any time I defend a program from a false claim I get hit with the
charge I am the one not being objective. I looked at the position I came to my
own conclusion that the move a4 is not a blunder and gave the reasons why. If
you can counter what I have said and shown then do so. I have been charged with
the claim I am not being objective with the following programs. Genius 3, 4, 5,
Fritz 5, and Hiarcs 7. and Hiarcs 7.32. They all claim I am rooting for my
favorite program and I am not being objective. Yet none of the people claiming
this has been able to counter what I have shown. You are no different. For you
information the only program I like to see do well is Rebel. This is my favorite
program. But I have to call them as I see them, and your claims about Hiarcs
7.32 playing blunders in the positions you have provided me is false...and at
best an overstatment. I know Hiarcs 7.32 plays blunders...but the positions you
have shown are not examples of it. Instead they have turned out to be
outstanding moves that the other programs would not have played or understood as
being strong. This is what happens when you let a chess program do all the
thinking for you about a position or a move in a position.
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.