Author: Terry Ripple
Date: 20:02:44 08/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 1999 at 22:01:58, Terry Ripple wrote: >On August 11, 1999 at 13:17:38, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>On August 11, 1999 at 08:35:52, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On August 11, 1999 at 05:59:25, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>My hiarcs on p200 got Bd7 0.61 9/27,0.68/10/30 >>>I stopped it after more than 10 minutes and did not give it to finish iteration >>>10. >>>I suspect that the results of hiarcs on computer B are based on learning from >>>the game that it lost. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Hi Uri >> >>Eehh... Your reply still leaves me wondering. When you look at the game, Hiarcs >>play is almost pathetic. I still have a "feel" that Hiarcs underperformed. And >>look at the big difference in search depth on move 14 between the two machines >>(10 vs 12 in about the same time). But I don't know much about how Hiarcs search >>works. Maybe its not so predictable as e.g. Craftys. >> >>I'll wait with the celebrations a while. Btw, I _have_ lost to Hiarcs :) >>These losses would be even more depressing if something was wrong >>with the machine or the settings... >> >>I'll dig in to this some more if the game isn't rejected/verified by some >>enlightened posters (other than yourself of course). >> >> Thanks for your answer, Ralf >-------- >Hi Ralf, > I also have Hiarcs7.32 and i thought it was suspicious play by Hiarcs, so i >deceided to play the game from the beginning and played your side of the board. >I tried to duplicate how much time that you used for each move to allow Hiarcs >to think on my time as it did in your game. > Starting with blacks move 16....Be8, my Hiarcs plays Ne8. Well, i take this >move back & force it to play 16...Be8 as in your game and proceed until i reach >another disagreement from your game on blacks move 19...Nb4. My Hiarcs makes the >move for black on move 19...Nf8 (0.61)10/29. I didn`t analyse these 2 moves so i >can`t say that they are better but it will give you some other ideas about your >game with Hiarcs. > I'am using a AMD K6-2/266Mhz with 64 Ram. Hash tables = 45Mb. For these 2 move >differences, i even let it analyse for a longer time to compensate for our speed >differences,but it still didn't make any difference! Let me know if you find the >problem or the answer to this! Good luck! > >Regards,Terry > Hi Ralf, I wanted to add that on blacks move on 15...Rfc8 and 16...Be8, Hiarcs took - no time to give its answer! You might want to check that out plus i know there were some other moves that took no time off the clock but they were more under-standable. Regards,Terry
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.