“…The deviation of these data from the value obtained by RHF/6-31G(d) (26.7 kcal/mole) is -6.2 kcal/mole, 7.2 kcal/mole, 0.2 kcal/mole, 4.9 kcal/mole, -1.3 kcal/mole, -2.3 kcal/mole, -2.0 kcal/mole, -1.4 kcal/mole, 4.1 kcal/mole, and -1.9 kcal/mole, respectively, or 23.2%, 27.0%, 0.8%, 18.4%, 4.9%, 8.6%, 7.5%, 5.2%, 15.4%, and 7.1%, respectively. One can conclude that the above-mentioned semiempirical methods (AM1 [1], PM3) and the RHF/6-31G(d)/RHF/STO-2G technique, as well as RHF/STO-2G, RHF/3-21G, and RHF/6-31G, provide information about the magnitude of changes in the H bond energy in the compounds under study, which is in reasonable agreement with the data of RHF/6-31G(d) calculations (Table 5) [1,12]. The ab initio methods of calculation, where geometry optimization is fulfilled in one approximation and the energy of a structure is calculated in another (in particular, at second order Möller Plesset level of theory), obviously slightly exaggerate the strength of H bonds in calix [4]arene; as a result, changes in H bond energy obtained by these methods approximate the value obtained by RHF/STO-2G.…”