Author: odell hall
Date: 09:23:36 09/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 1999 at 08:41:36, Anon wrote:
>On September 21, 1999 at 20:18:07, odell hall wrote:
>
>>On September 21, 1999 at 19:59:50, Ralf Elvsén wrote:
>>
>>>On September 21, 1999 at 19:16:04, odell hall wrote:
>>>
>>>>On September 21, 1999 at 16:14:44, James T. Walker 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am using the hiarcs7.32 engine, which is incorporated into the fritz5.32
>>>>interface Perhaps this accounts for the discrepancy in moves, what speed is your
>>>>computer?
>>>
>>>I checked the moves on my computer (PIII 450) and except for a very
>>>small eval difference at move 10 which makes it choose
>>>another move (maybe the same as James found),
>>>all moves and evalauations are identical up to move 19, where the
>>>differences suddenly really start to become frequent. The strangest move
>>>(leaving the q-side castling aside) is in my opinion 21. h5 .
>>>Here my version wants to play 21. Rhg1 with an eval of +1.25 .
>>>
>>>I wish I could understand the reason for these differences...
>>>
>>>Nice game btw. You play the computers more bravely than I do.
>>>You'll get it next time :)
>>>
>>>So you say other programs crush you much more convincingly
>>>than Hiarcs does? Which is the hardest in your opinion? I was
>>>too very happy with Hiarcs first, but maybe I want a program that
>>>beats me 10 - 0 and not 8 - 2 :)
>>>
>>>Ralf
>>
>>
>> Hi Ralf
>>
>> Yes I totally agree, I was very surprised by the move 21. H5? I have yet to
>>understand what it purpose was, I was thinking at the time it was one of the
>>deep positional master moves beyond my understanding? The thing took all day to
>>make the move (8:31). Fritz and Chessmaster consider 21Qc5!! to be much better
>>and I agree.
>
>Fritz also considers 21. Rhg1 and like Hiarcs will not consider h5.
>
>>Although that line only a computer could play, because it seems
>>very risky. My opinion the Hardest Program to beat is Fritz5.32 it has rock
>>solid defenses, I am not making any claims that I beat hiarcs7, It's play is >not just that impressive to me, I think hiarcs6 plays better.
>
>I do not believe your Hiarcs picked 21. h5 as regardless of time or depth no
>other person can reproduce it. You complained about Hiarcs 6 once before I
>believe, now you say it plays better than 7 nonsense !!.
>
>I also do not see how any player making such moves as 13....b5 and 16.....Nd5
>would then produce the moves from 30. on. especially 34....Qxa2.
>
>I do notice when loading different engines looking at this game, moves you made
>which Hiarcs did not expect Fritz or some other engine clearly do look at for
>example 13....b5.
To be honest friend I don't give a Damn whatever or not you believe me or not.
No oneelse questioned my sincerity now you come out of the blue with this
nonsense. An Axe to Grind? I have no idea what your talking about and I don't
think you do either! I posted thatI beat hiarcs6 awhile back but so what? What
does that have to do with my present article? If you had more manners and class
you would know how inappropriate it is to accuse someone of lying with
absolutely no proof, both hiarcs7.32 and hiarcs6 have been known to produce
different moves. Fabricating a game that I did not even win would absolutely
make no sense at all, Maybe you should think a little more before you make such
outrageous statements and accusations.
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.