Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 11:57:07 07/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 14:36:52, Mark Young wrote: >On July 24, 1999 at 14:07:44, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >> >>On July 24, 1999 at 06:56:50, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On July 24, 1999 at 06:36:46, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On July 24, 1999 at 06:21:39, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I gave my hiarcs7.32 64 Mb hash tables and some hours on my pentium200 and at >>>>>depth 11/30 it wants to play >>>>>Rb1 instead of a4. >>>>> >>>>>I did not look at the screen so I do not know when Hiarcs changed its mind >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>>Now it wants to play Rf1 at the same depth with evaluation 0.31 after more than >>>>3 hours >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Maybe Mel has a PIII-2000, so it happened much faster for him than for Mark and >>>Terry. ;) >> >>Hello Dave, >> >>No, actually I have an AMD K8 4000. :) >> >>What has been completely ignored here is in the same game at move 20 Hiarcs >>played Qd which is I believe a bad move. You can check out the move sequence in >>my original post entitled: To Mark Young. > >So you are retracting the claim on the first two _________________ No, I am not retracting anything! I reported exactly what occurred. _______________________________ positions? If so, I will start >looking at the third position. I have only had the positions for a day or so and >it take time to do analysis. If Hiarcs 7.32 made a bad move in the 3rd position >I will agree with you and say so for that position, but before I even look and >waste my time in this so called discussion. You need to answer the findings of >the first two positions and show us a line that refutes Hiarcs 7.32 moves if you >still disagree. ____________________________ You keep asking me to show you a line that refutes a4. I have told you that it was Hiarcs itself that refuted a4 when it refused to replay the move and insisted on Rf1. If you cannot accept that there is nothing further I can say. ______________________________> >As it stands now you have been wrong 2 out of 2 times. Now __________________ I have not been wrong 2 out of 2 times. Your comment about the passed pawns is without merit for Black cannot hold both pawns after Nc5. In fact, after Nc5 the line continues and Hiarcs, Fritz and Rebel all have White with a clear advantage. Period. ________________________________________________ you want to go to the >thrid position, if you are wrong there is will there be a 4th 5th and 6th etc. >until you luck out and find one positions were hiarcs 7.32 blunderd? I know >Hiarcs 7.32 blunders, but the point of your post was these postions we going to >show us that Hiarcs 7.32 was not such a good program. The first two positions it >seems Hiarcs 7.32 played correctly, now you only have 1 postion left to support >your claim and opinion. If you are correct on just this one positions does this >somehow support your claim and opinion when you are wrong on the other two. I >don't think so. __________________ I do not feel mistaken on any of the three claims I made. Hiarcs refuted a4 when it chose to only play Rf1 instead. I didn't force Hiarcs to change from a4, I simply let it replay the move for the reason I have told you numerous times. This is enough for me on this issue as I have many other things to do instead of beating a dead horse. ______________________________________> >> >>Regards, >>Mel >>> >>>Dave
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.