Author: Ralf Elvsén
Date: 02:59:25 08/11/99
Hi there
Here is a game I won against Hiarcs 7.32 (pgn below).
Mighty proud to have fair and square defeated the "superstrong"
Hiarcs, I looked at the game in analysis mode, but on a different
computer and now I am perplexed...
The game was played on computer A (see below). When analyzing on
computer B I noticed that the analysis is much faster on B, much
more than I would expect from the hardware. What is even more
strange is that the evaluation of the position on the two computers
are sometimes very different. Computer A is much more pessimistic.
For instance, after 14. Kh1 Hiarcs played 14 ... Bd7 in the game
with an eval of 0.61 (positive good for white = me) after search
to depth 10. On comp B the eval is around equality and Bd7 is move
nr 4 in the analysis candidate list after depth 10, eval = 0.00.
Actually, when I let it play a move on computer B it makes Nb4
after a search to depth 12 with eval -0.10. (included in the pgn).
Hm, my victory seems doubtful... The questions:
1. How can the apparent speed of the two computers differ so much?
I would guess the program on computer A is running much slower
than on B and maybe something is wrong.
2. Accepting the speed difference, how can the program
give extremely different evals for Bd7 at equal depth? I have made
standard installations, not changed any settings except for hash
table memory. The programs are installed from the same CD.
3. Another problem. When testopening the pgn with Winboard, it stopped
after 1. e4 and said "end of game". I edited away some "..." and "{5}"
in the first move and now it works? Is this really standard pgn?
============================
Computer A: PII 400 MHz, RAM = 64MB, hash = 35 MB
Win 98
Comp A is a rental Compaq with some stupid programs starting up when
I start the comp. I turn them off and then start Hiarcs. I checked
later with Wintop. Hiarcs get at least 98% of the processor speed.
Computer B: PIII 450 MHz, RAM = 128MB, hash = 64MB
Win 95 (better than Win 98, just my opinion)
Maybe I have done something stupid, but if some experienced Hiarcs/
ChessBase-owner could explain this to me I would be grateful. If some-
thing is wrong it might happen to other people.
Thanks in advance, Ralf
PS: the victory (although its relevance can be questioned) is quite
beatiful. Have a look :) The game was played in 120/40 + 60/20 + game/60.
No peeking at thinking lines or takebacks or... I took two breaks
during the game (not for analysis mind you).
I also let the program show its evalscore after each move.
Btw, when Hiarcs have problems, it says "Are you doing a Baburin
on me?". What does it mean?
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ralf"]
[Black "Hiarcs 7.32 (flawed?) "]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B83"]
[PlyCount "67"]
{34816kB, hiarcs.ctg. PentiumII
} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 {5} 2... d6 {4}
3. d4 {22} 3... cxd4 {0} 4. Nxd4 {2} 4... Nc6 {1} 5. Nc3 {14} 5... e6 {0} 6.
Be3 {88} 6... Be7 {0} 7. Be2 {6} 7... Nf6 {0.73/9 142} 8. O-O {34} 8... Bd7 {1}
9. Nb3 {56} 9... O-O {0} 10. f4 {154} 10... a6 {1} 11. a4 {184} 11... b6 {1}
12. Bf3 {87} 12... Qc7 {0} 13. Qe2 {178} 13... Be8 {0} 14. Kh1 {262} 14... Bd7
{0.61/10 278} (14... Nb4 {-0.10/12 262}) 15. Rad1 {355} 15... Rfc8 {0.51/10 0}
16. g4 {325} 16... Be8 {0.45/10 0} 17. g5 {237} 17... Nd7 {0.52/11 113} 18. Bg4
{215} 18... Qd8 {0.57/10 403} 19. h4 {9} 19... Nb4 {0.58/10 300} 20. f5 {168}
20... Ne5 {0.70/10 399} 21. fxe6 {677} 21... Nxc2 {0.88/10 0} 22. Bh3 {1377}
22... Nxe3 {0.38/9 382} 23. Qxe3 {11} 23... Rcb8 {0.59/9 414} 24. Nd4 {419}
24... Rb7 {1.13/9 591} 25. Rf2 {184} 25... Qb8 {0.86/9 412} 26. Rdf1 {83} 26...
b5 {1.27/10 698} 27. a5 {541} 27... b4 {0.61/9 155} 28. Nd5 {20} 28... Bd8 {
1.48/9 1170} 29. Nf6+ {180} 29... gxf6 {3.65/9 931} 30. gxf6 {17} 30... Bxf6 {
5.70/9 437} 31. Rxf6 {72} 31... Qd8 {10.64/10 0} 32. Qg5+ {571} 32... Ng6 {
8.98/9 177} 33. h5 {64} 33... Bb5 {9.25/8 9} 34. hxg6 {155} 1-0
This page took 0.01 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.