Author: James T. Walker
Date: 13:14:44 09/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 1999 at 15:00:14, odell hall wrote:
>Hi
>
> Has anyone noticed the often bizarre and irresponsible play of Hiarcs7.32?
>It is hard to believe this program is so celebrated here at CCC, the program has
>some obvious flaws that I think any Astute Human master could easily exploit.
>Last night I played it on my AMD k6-2 350 40mb, at 40\1hr, and nearly won, after
>the game I analyzed with fritz5.32, it pointed out atleast five missed wins on
>my part. Some may some, "well what are you talking about you lost didn't you"?,
>True but the point that I am making is that a player of my level should never of
>had hiarcs in such a position (uscf 1804). Analyzing the game with junior,
>fritz, and chessmaster they all made superior moves than hiarcs, and avoiding
>the trouble. If I were a computer chess operator on icc i would not feel
>comfortable playing hiarcs7.32 against titled players in anything over game\30.
>Don't get me wrong I am not basing my accessment on just this one game, but
>many. I think the biggest problem with hiarcs7 is the queenside Castling bug?
>Here is the Game, to illustrate what I am talking about.
>
>
>Event "Match game4"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "????.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "Hiarcs7.32"]
>[Black "O.hall"]
>[Result "1-0"]
>[ECO "E61"]
>[WhiteElo "2595"]
>[BlackElo "1805"]
>[Annotator "ohall"
>[PlyCount "69"]
>
>{39936kB, super.ctg. PentiumII
>} 1. d4 {0} 1... Nf6 {15} 2. c4 {0} 2... g6 {7}
>3. g3 {0} 3... Bg7 {8} 4. Bg2 {0} 4... O-O {10} 5. Nc3 {0} 5... c6 {9} 6. Qb3 {
>0.58/9 68} 6... d6 {77} 7. Nf3 {0.56/9 20} 7... Nbd7 {41} 8. Bg5 {0.49/9 131}
>8... h6 {26} 9. Bd2 {0.49/9 80} 9... e5 {60} 10. dxe5 {0.42/9 71} 10... Nxe5 {
>73} 11. Nxe5 {0.36/9 59} 11... dxe5 {28} 12. O-O-O {0.34/9 74} 12... Qc7 {40}
>13. Na4 {-0.03/9 232} 13... b5 {73} 14. cxb5 {0.51/9 173} 14... Be6 {39} 15.
>Qc2 {0.94/8 68} 15... Rac8 {50} 16. bxc6 {1.07/8 73} 16... Nd5 {43} 17. Kb1 {
>1.51/9 112} 17... f5 {113} 18. h4 {1.67/8 99} 18... e4 {25} 19. g4 {1.07/9 325}
>19... Rb8 {24} 20. gxf5 {1.90/8 249} 20... gxf5 {21} 21. h5 {0.90/8 511} 21...
>Nb4 {63} 22. Bxb4 {-0.40/9 370} 22... Rxb4 {4} 23. Kc1 {-0.87/8 196} 23... Rc4
>{206} 24. Nc3 {-1.30/9 80} 24... Qxc6 {9} 25. Rdg1 {-1.41/9 94} 25... Kh7 {124}
>26. Rh3 {-0.95/8 62} 26... Bd4 {67} 27. Rd1 {-0.74/7 25} 27... Bxf2 {39} 28. e3
>{-0.54/8 31} 28... f4 {114} 29. Qxf2 {0.00/9 0} 29... Rxc3+ {177} 30. bxc3 {
>-0.04/9 0} 30... Qxc3+ {29} 31. Qc2 {1.59/8 37} 31... Qa1+ {74} 32. Kd2 {
>2.14/8 37} 32... Rd8+ {28} 33. Ke1 {2.60/9 10} 33... Rxd1+ {36} 34. Qxd1 {
>2.60/9 6} 34... Qxa2 {32} 35. Bxe4+ {6.56/8 37} 1-0
Hello Odell,
All I can say is my Hiarcs 7.32 plays different from yours. Beginning with
8.Bg5 mine wants to play 8.0-0. At 10 it wants to again play 10.0-0. This list
continues with many different moves. I'm not sure what this means. I know that
Hiarcs uses the hash tables different from most programs and my computer is
different from yours but some of your moves are never considered by my Hiarcs
7.32. Position learning could also account for some of this, I don't know. I
agree the way yours played gives call for concern. The only thing I can say is
my Hiarcs plays equal to Fritz and Junior on equal hardware if not slightly
better. It mostly depends on the time control as to which one wins my matches.
But as far as I'm concerned Hiarcs is one of the top programs and I have no
explanation for the way your Hiarcs played.
Jim Walker
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.