Rybka 4 vs Houdini 1.02 - Long TC Match - LIVE BROADCAST

[S.Taylor]

So was move 23.nh2 [game 29] forcing a slight weakening of black (either by 23...h5 or the consequences of 24.ng4)?

[gerold]

For the next match I was thinking Houdini vs Stockfish.

BUT

A few choices I have which I can't decide on:

1: Keeping the same format
2: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with the same time controls
3: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with double the time controls

What do you think?

Also, I will double the hash size to 2048 MB.

Same just more games. Maybe 100 Or 200. .

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. We know Houdini would beat up on Stockfish.
P.S.2. More interesting( IMO )would be Firebird 1.3 vs.R4.

[Albert Silver]

For the next match I was thinking Houdini vs Stockfish.

BUT

A few choices I have which I can't decide on:

1: Keeping the same format
2: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with the same time controls
3: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with double the time controls

What do you think?

Also, I will double the hash size to 2048 MB.

Same just more games. Maybe 100 Or 200. .

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. We know Houdini would beat up on Stockfish.
P.S.2. More interesting( IMO )would be Firebird 1.3 vs.R4.

I prefer Stockfish to be honest. I don't see a lot of interest in another IPPO vs Rybka 4 match.

[Martin Thoresen]

Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.

[S.Taylor]

I prefer Stockfish to be honest. I don't see a lot of interest in another IPPO vs Rybka 4 match.

i.e. another IPPO vs rybka 3

[Albert Silver]

Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.

Keep it as it is, meaning maximum threads/cores for each engine when it is their turn. My 2 cents.

[gerold]

Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.

Thanks for the tests. Be interesting to see how bad Stockfish gets
beat (4CPU). Nice you are willing to put this much time
in testing these engines at long TC.

Best,
Gerold.

[S.Taylor]

I was actually wondering around this point, game 30, around move 120, if white has ways to try to win (getting his king round the back etc.), which houdini is not even trying.

Maybe i'm wrong, and that IF this were possible, it would be being played by these kind of machines without fail.

However, I've not yet seen even one response in this thread regarding comments on the games. (perhaps there is another forum/thread for this?)

[gerold]

Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.

HI Martin.
Stockfish 1.8 JA is out. It appears to be stronger than 1. 7.1

Best,
Gerold.

[Rubinus]

For the next match I was thinking Houdini vs Stockfish.

BUT

A few choices I have which I can't decide on:

1: Keeping the same format
2: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with the same time controls
3: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with double the time controls

What do you think?

Also, I will double the hash size to 2048 MB.

Same just more games. Maybe 100 Or 200. .

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. We know Houdini would beat up on Stockfish.
P.S.2. More interesting( IMO )would be Firebird 1.3 vs.R4.

Maybe use larger book. So far over short -> example E9 -> 7.de5 (stupid exchange variant). Optimal length cca 24-36 halvmoves, my guess.