What is stronger than Houdini 3 for what?

[Cubeman]

You claim that Houdini is much better in tactics, have you heard the saying that chess is 99% tactics. Longer time controls lead to more draws which is why you will see a contraction in the rating delta. Besides it is an illusion that chess contains two types of style that are tactics and strategy.

[S.Taylor]

It is clear, from TCEC (games which you can see very clearly, in the archives of Chessbomb and elswhere), that Houdini 1.5 is clearly superior to Rybka 4.1, at long time controls.
There is no doubt about it. THAT Houdini is far better than Rybka 4.1 in a match between the two. Endgame or not, anything else or not.

But from all you have said, i don't yet see proof that Houdini 3 is better than Houdini 1.5, or from Houdini 2, or from every other program, and that with just a little tweak from something, something else can clearly dominate Houdini 3.

Is this true, or not?

Or will Houdini survive everything with a few elo points handy?

If none of the rating lists can convince you, what will?

Robert

The rating lists don't always show what is about to errupt. YOU would be the one who knows better.
Doesn't Houdini make some moves stronger than Houdini 3, when playing Rybka 4.1, or which Rybka 4.1 can detect weaknesses in?

And do you say that Maurizio Maglio makes wrong conclusions from rating lists? I would believe what YOU say.

Please correct me if i understood bad. I understood that you basically doubt that Houdini 3 is indeed stronger than Houdini 1.5a when playing at LTC against Rybka 4.1?

Best Regards

Yes. That is the question i wanted to have clarified, and if so, what it means, and why.

(I'm sure no one here sees me, as an emotional judger of programs. With me, it is either results or reasoning or combined).

[MM]

First you basically mean that i'm not accurate to say something that i estrapolate from CEGT and CCRL with links and now you say that the same lists and others show the truth about the superiority of Houdini 3?

Why don't you treat these two cases in the same way?

Regards

You cherry-pick and extrapolate rating list results to make unverifiable claims about very long TC behavior.
I ask the OP to take a look at all the rating lists to see whether there is any ground for a claim that Houdini 3 is far superior to Houdini 1.5a.
There is a methodical difference, I hope you can spot it.

Robert

I don't agree. My contributes were genuine, i tried to publish all interesting material, i posted the links, i told my opinion, i don't have reasons to say something in which i don't believe, i just copied what CEGT and CCRL say and that was pretty complete. I had to extrapolate some parts to make evidence of the difference in ELO, otherwise my reasoning would have been probably ununderstandable for several readers.

You know it, because you cannot have forgotten the congratulation and my enthusiasm for the excellent results of Houdini 3 at chess960, and the advices that i sent you about your engine.

If you explain who is the OP perhaps i will learn a new thing, there's always something to learn, in methods too.

Best Regards

[MM]

It is clear, from TCEC (games which you can see very clearly, in the archives of Chessbomb and elswhere), that Houdini 1.5 is clearly superior to Rybka 4.1, at long time controls.
There is no doubt about it. THAT Houdini is far better than Rybka 4.1 in a match between the two. Endgame or not, anything else or not.

But from all you have said, i don't yet see proof that Houdini 3 is better than Houdini 1.5, or from Houdini 2, or from every other program, and that with just a little tweak from something, something else can clearly dominate Houdini 3.

Is this true, or not?

Or will Houdini survive everything with a few elo points handy?

If none of the rating lists can convince you, what will?

Robert

The rating lists don't always show what is about to errupt. YOU would be the one who knows better.
Doesn't Houdini make some moves stronger than Houdini 3, when playing Rybka 4.1, or which Rybka 4.1 can detect weaknesses in?

And do you say that Maurizio Maglio makes wrong conclusions from rating lists? I would believe what YOU say.

Please correct me if i understood bad. I understood that you basically doubt that Houdini 3 is indeed stronger than Houdini 1.5a when playing at LTC against Rybka 4.1?

Best Regards

Yes. That is the question i wanted to have clarified, and if so, what it means, and why.

(I'm sure no one here sees me, as an emotional judger of programs. With me, it is either results or reasoning or combined).

I understand and i agree but i think you (and me) won't never have an answer.

I suspect too that 1.5a could (could) perform better at LGT against Rybka 4.1 compared to H3 but generally these kins of doubts are seen by the authors like smog in their eyes, i think they don't understand they are questions from chess engine's lovers and they are not complaints or personal attachs.

Best Regards

[S.Taylor]

It is clear, from TCEC (games which you can see very clearly, in the archives of Chessbomb and elswhere), that Houdini 1.5 is clearly superior to Rybka 4.1, at long time controls.
There is no doubt about it. THAT Houdini is far better than Rybka 4.1 in a match between the two. Endgame or not, anything else or not.

But from all you have said, i don't yet see proof that Houdini 3 is better than Houdini 1.5, or from Houdini 2, or from every other program, and that with just a little tweak from something, something else can clearly dominate Houdini 3.

Is this true, or not?

Or will Houdini survive everything with a few elo points handy?

If none of the rating lists can convince you, what will?

Robert

The rating lists don't always show what is about to errupt. YOU would be the one who knows better.
Doesn't Houdini make some moves stronger than Houdini 3, when playing Rybka 4.1, or which Rybka 4.1 can detect weaknesses in?

And do you say that Maurizio Maglio makes wrong conclusions from rating lists? I would believe what YOU say.

Please correct me if i understood bad. I understood that you basically doubt that Houdini 3 is indeed stronger than Houdini 1.5a when playing at LTC against Rybka 4.1?

Best Regards

Yes. That is the question i wanted to have clarified, and if so, what it means, and why.

(I'm sure no one here sees me, as an emotional judger of programs. With me, it is either results or reasoning or combined).

I understand and i agree but i think you (and me) won't never have an answer.

I suspect too that 1.5a could (could) perform better at LGT against Rybka 4.1 compared to H3 but generally these kins of doubts are seen by the authors like smog in their eyes, i think they don't understand they are questions from chess engine's lovers and they are not complaints or personal attachs.

Best Regards

Absolutely!

[MM]

You claim that Houdini is much better in tactics, have you heard the saying that chess is 99% tactics. Longer time controls lead to more draws which is why you will see a contraction in the rating delta. Besides it is an illusion that chess contains two types of style that are tactics and strategy.

The first thing that every decent book of chess and every chess master teaches is the difference between tactics and strategy.

But i respect your opinion even when you say that chess is 99% tactics, although, in that case, i wonder how Botvinnik and Smyslov became world champions.

Best Regards

[Houdini]

I don't agree. My contributes were genuine, i tried to publish all interesting material, i posted the links, i told my opinion, i don't have reasons to say something in which i don't believe, i just copied what CEGT and CCRL say and that was pretty complete. I had to extrapolate some parts to make evidence of the difference in ELO, otherwise my reasoning would have been probably ununderstandable for several readers.

You know it, because you cannot have forgotten the congratulation and my enthusiasm for the excellent results of Houdini 3 at chess960, and the advices that i sent you about your engine.

If you explain who is the OP perhaps i will learn a new thing, there's always something to learn, in methods too.

Best Regards

Your contribution is genuine, but methodologically unsound - a genuine contribution is not by definition correct or accurate.

But I guess that there is nothing that I can say that would change your mind, because your next step is always to suggest that I'm dishonest (as you said above: "trying to hide the truth").

Robert

P.S. "OP" = "Original Poster"

[MM]

I don't agree. My contributes were genuine, i tried to publish all interesting material, i posted the links, i told my opinion, i don't have reasons to say something in which i don't believe, i just copied what CEGT and CCRL say and that was pretty complete. I had to extrapolate some parts to make evidence of the difference in ELO, otherwise my reasoning would have been probably ununderstandable for several readers.

You know it, because you cannot have forgotten the congratulation and my enthusiasm for the excellent results of Houdini 3 at chess960, and the advices that i sent you about your engine.

If you explain who is the OP perhaps i will learn a new thing, there's always something to learn, in methods too.

Best Regards

Your contribution is genuine, but methodologically unsound - a genuine contribution is not by definition correct or accurate.

But I guess that there is nothing that I can say that would change your mind, because your next step is always to suggest that I'm dishonest (as you said above: "trying to hide the truth").

Robert

P.S. "OP" = "Original Poster"

''No way, i posted the links, all data is available. I could say it's not elegant to enter a discussion only to try to defend a position, trying to hide the truth written on a paper.''

That's what i wrote, i didn't write and no intention and neither in my mind that you are dishonest but feel free to accuse me to have intended what is your interest to make people understand.

I must add that i've been accused, although without explicit words, to manipulate the informations.



Best Regards

[S.Taylor]

I don't agree. My contributes were genuine, i tried to publish all interesting material, i posted the links, i told my opinion, i don't have reasons to say something in which i don't believe, i just copied what CEGT and CCRL say and that was pretty complete. I had to extrapolate some parts to make evidence of the difference in ELO, otherwise my reasoning would have been probably ununderstandable for several readers.

You know it, because you cannot have forgotten the congratulation and my enthusiasm for the excellent results of Houdini 3 at chess960, and the advices that i sent you about your engine.

If you explain who is the OP perhaps i will learn a new thing, there's always something to learn, in methods too.

Best Regards

Your contribution is genuine, but methodologically unsound - a genuine contribution is not by definition correct or accurate.

But I guess that there is nothing that I can say that would change your mind, because your next step is always to suggest that I'm dishonest (as you said above: "trying to hide the truth").

Robert

P.S. "OP" = "Original Poster"

OP is me?
Is there a problem with ME?
(I had nothing but congratulations and good wishes for Houdini 3, but i am interested in the nature of the improvements over Houdinis 1.5, 2, etc. [And, is Rybka 4.1 being tucked more under the carpet yet, or not? ]).

(Perhaps 1.5 would beat Rybka 4.1 because of special tuning, whilst Houdini 3 is more honest superiority. e.g. maybe rybka 5 will improve vs Houdini 1.5, but will be unable to improve vs Houdini 3. I don't know)

[MM]

I don't agree. My contributes were genuine, i tried to publish all interesting material, i posted the links, i told my opinion, i don't have reasons to say something in which i don't believe, i just copied what CEGT and CCRL say and that was pretty complete. I had to extrapolate some parts to make evidence of the difference in ELO, otherwise my reasoning would have been probably ununderstandable for several readers.

You know it, because you cannot have forgotten the congratulation and my enthusiasm for the excellent results of Houdini 3 at chess960, and the advices that i sent you about your engine.

If you explain who is the OP perhaps i will learn a new thing, there's always something to learn, in methods too.

Best Regards

Your contribution is genuine, but methodologically unsound - a genuine contribution is not by definition correct or accurate.

But I guess that there is nothing that I can say that would change your mind, because your next step is always to suggest that I'm dishonest (as you said above: "trying to hide the truth").

Robert

P.S. "OP" = "Original Poster"

My next step...is always....it is funny, i was one of the 1st to buy Houdini 2, i purchased Houdini 3, i mailed you several times to give you feed back and a few times ask help, i don't understand why you act like we were arch enemies or at least like i was an arch enemy of yours...i'm not, why should i? You didn't do anything serious against me, i just don't like some ''methods'' that you use in communications, i think sometimes you are wrong, now that you are at the peak of success you have a lot of fake friends, i am a correct person, don't care who you are, i can be wrong but i am always in good faith.

You got my mail, we can talk about it if you want.

Best Regards