Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:53:52 09/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 1999 at 21:54:43, Pillsbury wrote:
>On September 26, 1999 at 01:11:08, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>On September 25, 1999 at 23:51:23, Laurence Chen wrote:
>>
>>>Below are two games which I manually played CM6666 from Shep's web site against
>>>Hiarcs 7.32. Hiarcs 7.32 was using its own opening book, and tablebases, running
>>>on a Pentium 233 MMX, with 128 MB Ram. Chessmaster was using a Cyrix 6x86 200
>>>MHz, 16 MB of Ram. It's impressive to see that CM was able to outplay Hiarcs
>>>positionally in both games. The first game is very informative in the
>>>demonstration of how CM restrain Hiarcs 7.32, takes its time to mobilize its
>>>forces and go for the kill (restrain, blockade, destroy). In my previous post I
>>>said that I was not impressed with the performance of Hiarcs 7.32, so if any of
>>>you Hiarcs die-hards can find out where your Hiarcs plays different I would like
>>>to know. Hiarcs 7.32 was running in Windows NT 4.0 SP4.
>>>Laurence Chen
>>
>>What is the point of this post, that Chessmaster can beat Hiarcs 7.32 two games
>>in a row. That not news or showing me anything, anyone who has Chessmaster knows
>>it is one of the top programs and a two game match is like flipping a coin.
>>
>>If this post is meant to show that Chessmaster is stronger then Hiarcs 7.32 and
>>supports your opinion, it falls far short with just two games played.
>>
>>I have both Chessmaster and Hiarcs7.32 and have said from day one after testing
>>Chessmaster 6000 it would hit the top of the SSDF list, but the proof you give
>>here to support your opinion that Chessmaster 6000 is superior to Hiarcs 7.32 is
>>inadequate. It would not be hard to produce two games where Hiarcs 7.32 beat
>>Chessmaster 6666 and claim the opposite conclusion.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>[Event "Level=120'/40+60'/20+30'. "]
>>>[Site " "]
>>>[Date "1999.09.24"]
>>>[Round "?"]
>>>[White "Hiarcs 7.32"]
>>>[Black "CM6666"]
>>>[Result "0-1"]
>>>[ECO "B01"]
>>>[PlyCount "80"]
>>>[EventDate "1999.09.21"]
>>>
>>>{131072kB, hiarcs.ctg. Pentium
>>>} 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nf3 Qe4+ 4. Be2 {
>>>0.53/9} 4... Qg6 5. O-O {0.55/9} 5... Bh3 6. Ne1 {0.14/11} 6... Nf6 7. d4 {
>>>0.53/9} 7... Nc6 8. d5 {0.39/9} 8... O-O-O 9. Bd3 {0.53/9} 9... Rxd5 10. Nc3 {
>>>0.55/9} 10... Rxd3 11. cxd3 {0.60/10} 11... e5 12. Be3 {0.51/9} 12... Be7 13.
>>>Rc1 {0.48/8} 13... Rd8 14. Qa4 {0.30/9} 14... a6 15. f4 {0.08/9} 15... Be6 16.
>>>Ne2 {0.04/8} 16... Ng4 17. Rf3 {0.00/8} 17... Bd7 18. Qb3 {0.00/8} 18... Nxe3
>>>19. Rxe3 {-0.70/10} 19... exf4 20. Re4 {-0.77/10} 20... f5 21. Rec4 {-1.11/9}
>>>21... Qd6 22. R4c2 {-1.08/9} 22... Kb8 23. Kh1 {-1.09/8} 23... Bh4 24. Nf3 {
>>>-1.02/9} 24... Bf2 25. a3 {-1.25/9} 25... Be3 26. Re1 {-1.34/9} 26... h6 27.
>>>Qc3 {-1.52/9} 27... g5 28. Rf1 {-1.70/9} 28... g4 29. Ne1 {-1.80/9} 29... Re8
>>>30. b4 {-1.75/9} 30... Nd4 31. Nxd4 {-2.14/11} 31... Bxd4 32. Qd2 {-2.14/10}
>>>32... Bb5 33. Ra2 {-2.80/10} 33... Qe5 34. Rc2 {-2.98/10} 34... h5 35. Qc1 {
>>>-3.84/10} 35... h4 36. Qd1 {-4.54/9} 36... h3 37. Qd2 {-5.41/9} 37... hxg2+ 38.
>>>Nxg2 {-5.66/9} 38... f3 39. Nh4 {-6.72/7} 39... Qh8 40. Nxf3 {-8.50/7} 40...
>>>gxf3 0-1
>>>
>>>[Event "Level=120'/40+60'/20+30'. "]
>>>[Site " "]
>>>[Date "1999.09.25"]
>>>[Round "?"]
>>>[White "CM6666"]
>>>[Black "Hiarcs 7.32"]
>>>[Result "1-0"]
>>>[ECO "D07"]
>>>[PlyCount "111"]
>>>[EventDate "1999.09.21"]
>>>
>>>{131072kB, hiarcs.ctg. Pentium
>>>} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Nf3
>>>Bd7 {0.20/10} 6. Bd3 Nb4 {0.06/9} 7. Be2 dxc4 {0.09/9} 8. Bxc4 c5 {0.07/9} 9.
>>>O-O cxd4 {-0.02/8} 10. exd4 Rc8 {0.08/9} 11. Qe2 Be7 {0.01/9} 12. Bg5 O-O {
>>>-0.04/9} 13. Ne5 h6 {-0.01/8} 14. Bh4 a6 {0.06/8} 15. Bb3 Be8 {0.18/8} 16. Rfd1
>>>Nbd5 {0.31/8} 17. Qd3 g5 {0.11/8} 18. Bg3 Kg7 {0.41/8} 19. Rac1 Qa5 {0.44/8}
>>>20. Nc4 Qd8 {0.30/9} 21. Nxd5 Nxd5 {0.13/9} 22. Nd6 Rxc1 {0.21/9} 23. Nxe8+
>>>Rxe8 {0.00/9} 24. Rxc1 h5 {0.00/9} 25. h4 gxh4 {0.00/9} 26. Be5+ f6 {0.00/10}
>>>27. Bc2 Rh8 {0.00/10} 28. Bh2 f5 {-0.02/9} 29. Bb3 Bf6 {0.13/9} 30. Qe2 Kf7 {
>>>0.25/9} 31. Re1 Qd7 {0.00/10} 32. Be5 Bxe5 {0.00/10} 33. Qxe5 Rg8 {0.00/9} 34.
>>>Rc1 Kg6 {0.26/9} 35. Rc5 Rc8 {0.30/9} 36. Ba4 b5 {0.00/9} 37. Bb3 Nf6 {0.31/9}
>>>38. f3 Nd5 {0.30/9} 39. Bxd5 Rxc5 {0.00/10} 40. dxc5 exd5 {0.00/10} 41. Qd4 Qe7
>>>{0.30/10} 42. Kf1 Qg5 {0.00/9} 43. f4 Qg4 {0.00/9} 44. c6 h3 {0.00/10} 45. gxh3
>>>Qxh3+ {0.00/10} 46. Ke1 Qh1+ {0.00/9} 47. Ke2 Qc1 {0.00/9} 48. Qxd5 Qxb2+ {
>>>0.00/9} 49. Kd3 Qb1+ {0.00/9} 50. Kd4 Qc1 {1.92/8} 51. Qe6+ Kg7 {5.80/10} 52.
>>>Qe7+ Kg6 {5.80/10} 53. c7 Qxf4+ {6.09/9} 54. Kc5 Qf2+ {6.09/10} 55. Kc6 Qxa2 {
>>>6.48/8} 56. c8=Q 1-0
>
>
>YOU MUST BE KIDDING!!!!
>
>If CM60000000 is so good, why did not it get a fast computer in SSDF????????
>This site is for serious chess....Please dont joke around!!!!!
>
>Pillsbury
>HIARCS 7.32 RULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most likely because there wasn't enough time to manually play 100 games on the
new, faster hardware. If you look at the list, you'll notice that it has the
best rating on MMX200s.
Dave
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.