Author: Anon
Date: 12:15:51 09/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 1999 at 12:23:36, odell hall wrote:
>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.
Odell,
I am aware that fabricating a game makes no sense, at least not to me.
I don't consider any statement I made as being that outrageous. The implications
were in other posts mine was just more direct. I am not sure if in such a forum
I need proof to make statements that do not defy the CCC charter as I do not
believe any statement I made does.
In fact your tone has been far more NASTY than mine. I never called you a child
as you did me, (though I may have considered maybe you were).
If you are offended by me speaking my mind I apologize and will in future avoid
any questioning of your posts.
Thanks.
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.