Author: odell hall
Date: 17:01:02 09/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 1999 at 19:42:45, Wayne Lowrance wrote:
>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.
>>
>Hello
>First my comments are not to suggest my H performs better than yours but that it
>plays very much different.
>my computer is pentium 11 400 mhz and set H up to 64 meg hash time control at
>40/1 hr.
>One significantv difference, I use Fritz 5.32 General Book because I quickly
>found out that H book is inferior ! None the less I carefully followed your
>moves move by move. up to move 22 at which point I stopped the comparison as it
>was very clear that your posted moves where very inferior to the moves that my H
>was making. here is a summary.
>
>at:
>8. My H wanted to 0-0, forced your move !
>9. My H wanted Be3, forced your move not none the less H score difference
>between your H and Mine was very similiar.
>18. My H wanted Bxh6 (1.73/8 your move on My H dropped score to (+1.06)
>significant evaluation difference for just one move ! and your H seems to go
>down hill from here on based on what evaluation by my H.
>19 My H wanted h5 forced your move
>20. My H wanted Rh-g4 forced your move
>21. My H wanted Qc5 forced your move. by this time My H degraded indicated the
>score had degraded to -0.52 where as my H was indicating 2.21 at move 20 , quite
>a difference in play.
>
>I find this very interesting cause there seems to be a difference in how Hiarc's
>plays based on posts and comments that I follow here. I dont have a answer, is
>it hardware differences ? i dont's know. I am positive of one statement that can
>be made, I do not like the Hiarcs default book based on games played against
>other programs on a well known chess server.
>
>I would like to voice an impression concerning the play of Hiarc's verses time
>control. Hiarc's plays at or near the the top in Blitz 5 min. Its superiority in
>play against other programs on chess server drops as the time element is
>increased. The reason may be that Hiarcs positional understanding is the plus
>advantage when game moves are made rapid but the advantage diminishes at longer
>time controls against deep fast searchers such as Fritz etc. In game at 30 min
>Fritz5.32 and Hiarchs are very very close it seems to me
>
>I may be wrong in both statements, but that is my experience with the program
>against other programs.
>
>
HI Your post is interesting because the moves that you suggested your hiarcs
made instead of my hiarcs are the exact moves that I said that Chessmaster, and
fritz makes that are superior!!, all expect for 8Bg5, which was part of the
supergrandmaster book that I created, Hiarcs was actually out of book at move 9
I think.
>>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
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.