What is stronger than Houdini 3 for what?

[S.Taylor]

Now that we have tested Houdini 3 to an extent, by now,

Can we get a clearer idea to this question?

Is Houdini 3 the strongest engine in all cases at this point in time?

_I_ got the impression that there is one case that there is a stronger engine, e.g.

Houdini 1.5 vs Rybka 4.1.

Is this indeed stronger than

Houdini 3 vs 4.1?

(in general i refer to equal hardware, plus, longer time controls than blitz).

[MM]

Now that we have tested Houdini 3 to an extent, by now,

Can we get a clearer idea to this question?

Is Houdini 3 the strongest engine in all cases at this point in time?

_I_ got the impression that there is one case that there is a stronger engine, e.g.

Houdini 1.5 vs Rybka 4.1.

Is this indeed stronger than

Houdini 3 vs 4.1?

(in general i refer to equal hardware, plus, longer time controls than blitz).

Thank you, that is an interest argument.

It is evident that more that the time control increases and more Houdini loses its strenght. It is written in the lists and in the tests games and it is completely logical.

That is because Houdini has a well known approach to chess, curiousily very similar to robbo-ippo era, then very fast search to find good moves, especially tactical moves, in a short time.

That's a huge advantage in blitz and in medium time control but at long time control almost every engine at a high level has enough time to see what Houdini often sees in a very short time.

I think there are other engines that play much better from a point of view of positional play, or if you prefer, with ''armony'', like the former world champion Smyslov used to say. But their problem is the tactics, especially in short time control (for example Shredder).

I think that Rybka is the best competitor at long time control because it has a deep way to analyze and it has also skill in tactics, if it has enough time. More, Rybka has a very good knowledge about endgames and all this hurts Houdini.

I wouldn't be surprised if at 120/40 repeated Rybka should be less than 30 elo to Houdini or even better.

Also Komodo would be a good competitor, i think probably the MP version of the actual best version of Komodo should be very close to Houdini at 120/40.

I think so because the difference in strenght reduces so much moving from 40/4 to 40/20 or 40/40 and from 1 core to 4/6 core that, going with this trend, at 120/40 on MP probably Houdini would lose most of its advantage.




Best Regards

[Uri Blass]

I saw no evidence for your claims that houdini3 is relatively
weaker at longer time control and I will be very surprised if you see less than 30 elo points difference between houdini3 and Rybka4(considering the fact that the difference in 40/40 is 90 elo)

I think that it may be more interesting to test houdini3 1 cpu against rybka4.1 4 cpu and I would like to see if Rybka4.1 4 cpu performs better at longer time control.

[syzygy]

I saw no evidence for your claims that houdini3 is relatively
weaker at longer time control and I will be very surprised if you see less than 30 elo points difference between houdini3 and Rybka4(considering the fact that the difference in 40/40 is 90 elo)

The two above base themselves on a single match result that is a statistical outlier, while refusing to accept simple statistical facts.

[Laskos]

Now that we have tested Houdini 3 to an extent, by now,

Can we get a clearer idea to this question?

Is Houdini 3 the strongest engine in all cases at this point in time?

_I_ got the impression that there is one case that there is a stronger engine, e.g.

Houdini 1.5 vs Rybka 4.1.

Is this indeed stronger than

Houdini 3 vs 4.1?

(in general i refer to equal hardware, plus, longer time controls than blitz).

Thank you, that is an interest argument.

It is evident that more that the time control increases and more Houdini loses its strenght. It is written in the lists and in the tests games and it is completely logical.

That is because Houdini has a well known approach to chess, curiousily very similar to robbo-ippo era, then very fast search to find good moves, especially tactical moves, in a short time.

That's a huge advantage in blitz and in medium time control but at long time control almost every engine at a high level has enough time to see what Houdini often sees in a very short time.

I think there are other engines that play much better from a point of view of positional play, or if you prefer, with ''armony'', like the former world champion Smyslov used to say. But their problem is the tactics, especially in short time control (for example Shredder).

I think that Rybka is the best competitor at long time control because it has a deep way to analyze and it has also skill in tactics, if it has enough time. More, Rybka has a very good knowledge about endgames and all this hurts Houdini.

I wouldn't be surprised if at 120/40 repeated Rybka should be less than 30 elo to Houdini or even better.

Also Komodo would be a good competitor, i think probably the MP version of the actual best version of Komodo should be very close to Houdini at 120/40.

I think so because the difference in strenght reduces so much moving from 40/4 to 40/20 or 40/40 and from 1 core to 4/6 core that, going with this trend, at 120/40 on MP probably Houdini would lose most of its advantage.




Best Regards

Nonsense. From all what I saw, Houdini 3 is one of the best scaling with time top engine. Houdini 2 did scale worse than some top engines, but this is corrected with Houdini 3, which is undisputed leader at long time controls and probably scales even better than some other top engines. Look up the lists, matches, hardware and so on before writing your outlandish statements.

Kai

[MM]

Now that we have tested Houdini 3 to an extent, by now,

Can we get a clearer idea to this question?

Is Houdini 3 the strongest engine in all cases at this point in time?

_I_ got the impression that there is one case that there is a stronger engine, e.g.

Houdini 1.5 vs Rybka 4.1.

Is this indeed stronger than

Houdini 3 vs 4.1?

(in general i refer to equal hardware, plus, longer time controls than blitz).

Thank you, that is an interest argument.

It is evident that more that the time control increases and more Houdini loses its strenght. It is written in the lists and in the tests games and it is completely logical.

That is because Houdini has a well known approach to chess, curiousily very similar to robbo-ippo era, then very fast search to find good moves, especially tactical moves, in a short time.

That's a huge advantage in blitz and in medium time control but at long time control almost every engine at a high level has enough time to see what Houdini often sees in a very short time.

I think there are other engines that play much better from a point of view of positional play, or if you prefer, with ''armony'', like the former world champion Smyslov used to say. But their problem is the tactics, especially in short time control (for example Shredder).

I think that Rybka is the best competitor at long time control because it has a deep way to analyze and it has also skill in tactics, if it has enough time. More, Rybka has a very good knowledge about endgames and all this hurts Houdini.

I wouldn't be surprised if at 120/40 repeated Rybka should be less than 30 elo to Houdini or even better.

Also Komodo would be a good competitor, i think probably the MP version of the actual best version of Komodo should be very close to Houdini at 120/40.

I think so because the difference in strenght reduces so much moving from 40/4 to 40/20 or 40/40 and from 1 core to 4/6 core that, going with this trend, at 120/40 on MP probably Houdini would lose most of its advantage.




Best Regards

Nonsense. From all what I saw, Houdini 3 is one of the best scaling with time top engine. Houdini 2 did scale worse than some top engines, but this is corrected with Houdini 3, which is undisputed leader at long time controls and probably scales even better than some other top engines. Look up the lists, matches, hardware and so on before writing your outlandish statements.

Kai

Thank you for the nice words. I wonder why you don't post more often so everyone could understand how to be polite and learn many other things from you.


From CCRL list, 40/4 - pure list (do you know what it is?)

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... _pure.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3353
Critter 1.6a - 4 cpu 3254 (-99)
Stockfish 2.3.1 - 4 cpu 3247 (-106)
Rybka 4.1 - 4cpu 3243 (-110)


From CCRL list 40/40 - pure list


http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... _pure.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3248
Stockfish 2.2.2 - 4 cpu 3183 (-65)
Critter 1.2 - 4 cpu 3180 (-68)
Rybka 4.1 - 4 cpu 3171 (-77)

So Stockfish has +41, Critter has +31, Rybka has +33.


Don't like pure list?

No problem.

CCRL 40/4 complete list

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... t_all.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3334
Critter 1.6a - 4 cpu 3235 (-99)
Stockfish 2.3.1 - 4 cpu 3230 (-104)
Rybka 4.1 - 4cpu 3217 (-117)

CCRL 40/40 complete list

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... t_all.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3287
Critter 1.6a - 4 cpu 3207 (-80)
Rybka 4 - 4 cpu 3199 (-88)
Stockfish 2.2.2 - 4 cpu 3199 (-88)

Critter has +19, Rybka has +29, Stockfish has +16.


It is evident (not for you i think) that Houdini 3's advantage on the other engines diminishes moving from 40/4 to 40/40.

Some versions of Critter, Stockfish and Rybka seem to perform better than others at longer time control but this doesn't move the problem then all main competitors of Houdini 3 gain several points when the time control increases.

40/40 is not certainly a long time control, long time control is 120/40, for example, so it's logical to believe that the gap should diminish more.




Not enough?

CEGT 40/4 2 cpu (Houdini 3 - 4 cpu is not in the list)

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ra ... liste.html


Houdini 3 - 2 cpu 3134
Critter 1.4 - 2 cpu 3023 (-111)
Stockfish 2.2.2 - 2 cpu 3015 (-119)
Rybka 4 - 2 cpu 3008 (-126)



CEGT 40/20 ponder OFF 4 cpu

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html

Houdini 3 - 3154
Critter 1.6 - 3061 (-93)
Stockfish 2.3 - 3053 (-101)
Rybka 4.1 3047 (-107)

So Critter has +18, Stockfish +18, Rybka +19.

Of course 40/20 is rapid but you can see (?) that the gap diminishes moving from 40/4 to 40/20.

In this case too some versions of Stockfish, Rybka and Critter perform better than others but in any case their best version reduces the gap.


Is it still a nonsense?

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn//40120n ... liste.html

This is, as far as i know, the most recent rating list at 40/120.

Houdini 3 is not included but look how Stockfish 2.2.2 is even +1 to Houdini 1.5 when in blitz Houdini 1.5 destroys easily Stockfish and all the other engines.

If you see (?) all top engines are very close.

Note (?) that also Komodo 5, Critter 1.6, Stockfish 2.3.1 and Rybka 4.1 are not in the list.

Still nonsense?

If this is not enough i invite you to observe sometimes the games, perhaps you will understand that the tactical ability of Houdini loses its strenght more that the time control increases, exactly as it happens in human games. Who plays chess (do you?) knows that there are many chess players very strong in bullet and blitz but sometimes their strenght diminishes dramatically when the time control becomes longer.


The reason is the same.


Best wishes, really.

[Laskos]

Now that we have tested Houdini 3 to an extent, by now,

Can we get a clearer idea to this question?

Is Houdini 3 the strongest engine in all cases at this point in time?

_I_ got the impression that there is one case that there is a stronger engine, e.g.

Houdini 1.5 vs Rybka 4.1.

Is this indeed stronger than

Houdini 3 vs 4.1?

(in general i refer to equal hardware, plus, longer time controls than blitz).

Thank you, that is an interest argument.

It is evident that more that the time control increases and more Houdini loses its strenght. It is written in the lists and in the tests games and it is completely logical.

That is because Houdini has a well known approach to chess, curiousily very similar to robbo-ippo era, then very fast search to find good moves, especially tactical moves, in a short time.

That's a huge advantage in blitz and in medium time control but at long time control almost every engine at a high level has enough time to see what Houdini often sees in a very short time.

I think there are other engines that play much better from a point of view of positional play, or if you prefer, with ''armony'', like the former world champion Smyslov used to say. But their problem is the tactics, especially in short time control (for example Shredder).

I think that Rybka is the best competitor at long time control because it has a deep way to analyze and it has also skill in tactics, if it has enough time. More, Rybka has a very good knowledge about endgames and all this hurts Houdini.

I wouldn't be surprised if at 120/40 repeated Rybka should be less than 30 elo to Houdini or even better.

Also Komodo would be a good competitor, i think probably the MP version of the actual best version of Komodo should be very close to Houdini at 120/40.

I think so because the difference in strenght reduces so much moving from 40/4 to 40/20 or 40/40 and from 1 core to 4/6 core that, going with this trend, at 120/40 on MP probably Houdini would lose most of its advantage.




Best Regards

Nonsense. From all what I saw, Houdini 3 is one of the best scaling with time top engine. Houdini 2 did scale worse than some top engines, but this is corrected with Houdini 3, which is undisputed leader at long time controls and probably scales even better than some other top engines. Look up the lists, matches, hardware and so on before writing your outlandish statements.

Kai

Thank you for the nice words. I wonder why you don't post more often so everyone could understand how to be polite and learn many other things from you.


From CCRL list, 40/4 - pure list (do you know what it is?)

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... _pure.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3353
Critter 1.6a - 4 cpu 3254 (-99)
Stockfish 2.3.1 - 4 cpu 3247 (-106)
Rybka 4.1 - 4cpu 3243 (-110)


From CCRL list 40/40 - pure list


http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... _pure.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3248
Stockfish 2.2.2 - 4 cpu 3183 (-65)
Critter 1.2 - 4 cpu 3180 (-68)
Rybka 4.1 - 4 cpu 3171 (-77)

So Stockfish has +41, Critter has +31, Rybka has +33.


Don't like pure list?

No problem.

CCRL 40/4 complete list

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... t_all.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3334
Critter 1.6a - 4 cpu 3235 (-99)
Stockfish 2.3.1 - 4 cpu 3230 (-104)
Rybka 4.1 - 4cpu 3217 (-117)

CCRL 40/40 complete list

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... t_all.html

Houdini 3 - 4 cpu 3287
Critter 1.6a - 4 cpu 3207 (-80)
Rybka 4 - 4 cpu 3199 (-88)
Stockfish 2.2.2 - 4 cpu 3199 (-88)

Critter has +19, Rybka has +29, Stockfish has +16.


It is evident (not for you i think) that Houdini 3's advantage on the other engines diminishes moving from 40/4 to 40/40.

Some versions of Critter, Stockfish and Rybka seem to perform better than others at longer time control but this doesn't move the problem then all main competitors of Houdini 3 gain several points when the time control increases.

40/40 is not certainly a long time control, long time control is 120/40, for example, so it's logical to believe that the gap should diminish more.




Not enough?

CEGT 40/4 2 cpu (Houdini 3 - 4 cpu is not in the list)

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ra ... liste.html


Houdini 3 - 2 cpu 3134
Critter 1.4 - 2 cpu 3023 (-111)
Stockfish 2.2.2 - 2 cpu 3015 (-119)
Rybka 4 - 2 cpu 3008 (-126)



CEGT 40/20 ponder OFF 4 cpu

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html

Houdini 3 - 3154
Critter 1.6 - 3061 (-93)
Stockfish 2.3 - 3053 (-101)
Rybka 4.1 3047 (-107)

So Critter has +18, Stockfish +18, Rybka +19.

Of course 40/20 is rapid but you can see (?) that the gap diminishes moving from 40/4 to 40/20.

In this case too some versions of Stockfish, Rybka and Critter perform better than others but in any case their best version reduces the gap.


Is it still a nonsense?

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn//40120n ... liste.html

This is, as far as i know, the most recent rating list at 40/120.

Houdini 3 is not included but look how Stockfish 2.2.2 is even +1 to Houdini 1.5 when in blitz Houdini 1.5 destroys easily Stockfish and all the other engines.

If you see (?) all top engines are very close.

Note (?) that also Komodo 5, Critter 1.6, Stockfish 2.3.1 and Rybka 4.1 are not in the list.

Still nonsense?

If this is not enough i invite you to observe sometimes the games, perhaps you will understand that the tactical ability of Houdini loses its strenght more that the time control increases, exactly as it happens in human games. Who plays chess (do you?) knows that there are many chess players very strong in bullet and blitz but sometimes their strenght diminishes dramatically when the time control becomes longer.


The reason is the same.


Best wishes, really.

Look up at the number of games, error margins, other matches played and posted here and elsewhere. You selectively choose what is convenient (where is CEGT 40/20 ponder ON and many other results?). Keep in mind that 100 points at 40/4 translate (with equal scaling) in some maybe 80 at 40/40 because the number of draws increases. Equal scaling doesn't mean that 40/4 and 40/120 results have the same Elo difference, and it is better to talk of time handicap to get the engines equal in strength. And I am talking specifically of Houdini 3, which scales better than Houdini 2, and probably on a par with Rybka, Critter, etc.

As to your chess abilities to judge the subtleties in quality of Houdini and Rybka play at long and short TC, they must be awesome.

Kai

[S.Taylor]

[

Can we get a clearer idea to this question?

Is Houdini 3 the strongest engine in all cases at this point in time?

_I_ got the impression that there is one case that there is a stronger engine, e.g.

Houdini 1.5 vs Rybka 4.1.

Is this indeed stronger than

Houdini 3 vs 4.1?

(in general i refer to equal hardware, plus, longer time controls than blitz).[/quote]

Thank you, that is an interest argument.

It is evident that more that the time control increases and more Houdini loses its strenght. It is written in the lists and in the tests games and it is completely logical.

That is because Houdini has a well known approach to chess, curiousily very similar to robbo-ippo era, then very fast search to find good moves, especially tactical moves, in a short time.

That's a huge advantage in blitz and in medium time control but at long time control almost every engine at a high level has enough time to see what Houdini often sees in a very short time.

I think there are other engines that play much better from a point of view of positional play, or if you prefer, with ''armony'', like the former world champion Smyslov used to say. But their problem is the tactics, especially in short time control (for example Shredder).

I think that Rybka is the best competitor at long time control because it has a deep way to analyze and it has also skill in tactics, if it has enough time. More, Rybka has a very good knowledge about endgames and all this hurts Houdini.

I wouldn't be surprised if at 120/40 repeated Rybka should be less than 30 elo to Houdini or even better.

Also Komodo would be a good competitor, i think probably the MP version of the actual best version of Komodo should be very close to Houdini at 120/40.

I think so because the difference in strenght reduces so much moving from 40/4 to 40/20 or 40/40 and from 1 core to 4/6 core that, going with this trend, at 120/40 on MP probably Houdini would lose most of its advantage.




Best Regards[/quote]

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?

[Houdini]

Still nonsense?

Yes.
It's unsound to cherry-pick rating lists to make a point.
It's unwise to discuss rating list results without even once mentioning their error margins.

[Houdini]

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