Houdini 1.5 running for the IPON

[George Tsavdaris]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►Since perhaps there is an opening book, let's call it OPB1 that if all engines in your tournament use it to make Rybka 4 stronger than Houdini 1.5 with the same conditions of your list and let's say it will make her have 3105 ELO and Houdini 1.5 3010.
Let now use a different opening book for Houdini. And another one and another one until we find which fits it better and make it stronger. Let's do the other with the other engines on your list.

►So perhaps there is a configuration of opening books OPB1, OPB2, OPB3, etc... for Rybka 4, Houdini 1.5, Stockfish 1.9.1, etc... that will make Rybka 4 to have e.g an ELO of 3090, Houdini an ELO of 3020 and that no opening book for Houdini can be found(or can exist) that can beat Rybka's 4 ELO by using the OPB1.

So our verdict would be that Rybka 4 + Opening Book-1 is the stronger Chess playing entity than Houdini 1.5 (with any opening book that exists).
Houdini 1.5 can't beat Rybka 4+OPB1 no matter what.

These 2 ways of testing(with and without opening books) are completely different in kind, but both are useful and interesting.

If you continue to be a good boy, maybe Santa will also bring you Rybka bugfix.
And you should be proud, believing in Santa is so nice .

??

I don't even have Rybka 4 so i don't care about a bugfix.

[Milos]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►Since perhaps there is an opening book, let's call it OPB1 that if all engines in your tournament use it to make Rybka 4 stronger than Houdini 1.5 with the same conditions of your list and let's say it will make her have 3105 ELO and Houdini 1.5 3010.
Let now use a different opening book for Houdini. And another one and another one until we find which fits it better and make it stronger. Let's do the other with the other engines on your list.

►So perhaps there is a configuration of opening books OPB1, OPB2, OPB3, etc... for Rybka 4, Houdini 1.5, Stockfish 1.9.1, etc... that will make Rybka 4 to have e.g an ELO of 3090, Houdini an ELO of 3020 and that no opening book for Houdini can be found(or can exist) that can beat Rybka's 4 ELO by using the OPB1.

So our verdict would be that Rybka 4 + Opening Book-1 is the stronger Chess playing entity than Houdini 1.5 (with any opening book that exists).
Houdini 1.5 can't beat Rybka 4+OPB1 no matter what.

These 2 ways of testing(with and without opening books) are completely different in kind, but both are useful and interesting.

If you continue to be a good boy, maybe Santa will also bring you Rybka bugfix.
And you should be proud, believing in Santa is so nice .

??

I don't even have Rybka 4 so i don't care about a bugfix.

You don't even have Rybka and you are dreaming about some 140 elo gain from opening books????
It's a really sad thing how unaware of a degree of your delusion you are...

[Don]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►Since perhaps there is an opening book, let's call it OPB1 that if all engines in your tournament use it to make Rybka 4 stronger than Houdini 1.5 with the same conditions of your list and let's say it will make her have 3105 ELO and Houdini 1.5 3010.
Let now use a different opening book for Houdini. And another one and another one until we find which fits it better and make it stronger. Let's do the other with the other engines on your list.

►So perhaps there is a configuration of opening books OPB1, OPB2, OPB3, etc... for Rybka 4, Houdini 1.5, Stockfish 1.9.1, etc... that will make Rybka 4 to have e.g an ELO of 3090, Houdini an ELO of 3020 and that no opening book for Houdini can be found(or can exist) that can beat Rybka's 4 ELO by using the OPB1.

So our verdict would be that Rybka 4 + Opening Book-1 is the stronger Chess playing entity than Houdini 1.5 (with any opening book that exists).
Houdini 1.5 can't beat Rybka 4+OPB1 no matter what.

These 2 ways of testing(with and without opening books) are completely different in kind, but both are useful and interesting.

If you continue to be a good boy, maybe Santa will also bring you Rybka bugfix.
And you should be proud, believing in Santa is so nice .

??

I don't even have Rybka 4 so i don't care about a bugfix.

The big problem with "own book" testing is that books can be rigged. If you give me an opponent with a book, I can develop a killer book which will give my program a large ELO advantage. If the book is huge and varied, then it is more difficult but still possible. And it can be fully automated.

That's why I feel that programs should be tested with anonymous books. In an ideal world the program chooses it's own move right from the start of the game but history has shown this is highly subject to manipulation for ratings purposes.

But another reason I don't like books is that in my view it does not test an engine, and I'm generally purchasing the engine when I buy (or download) a chess program. The book provides Grandmaster quality games and the engine is doing nothing - just sitting in memory.

If it were not for the problem with variety I would favor no books at all but the games would be too repetitive. So I prefer lots of variety but not very deep openings. For testing you want the engine to play most of the game, not the books. You can get very good variety with only 5 moves for each side.

[Laskos]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►

Hahahaha, I bet Fritz 5.32 with a very specialized book is actually the best engine around, unfortunately no one bothered to put its special book in games.

Some guys here seem to be fetishist about Rybka not being the strongest, a behaviour found in the attitude of parents towards their kids.

Funny, they seem incorruptible, I bet even if I bribe these fanatics they will state that Rybka is the best.

Kai

[George Tsavdaris]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►

Hahahaha, I bet Fritz 5.32 with a very specialized book is actually the best engine around, unfortunately no one bothered to put its special book in games.

Some guys here seem to be fetishist about Rybka not being the strongest, a behaviour found in the attitude of parents towards their kids.

Funny, they seem incorruptible, I bet even if I bribe these fanatics they will state that Rybka is the best.

Kai

Heh you have just judged me wrong. No problem.

And BTW the use of Rybka as the engine that could become first with the opening book etc... was accidental/random. I would say the same with Houdini instead of Rybka, if Rybka 4 was better than Houdini 1.5 in IPON list.

In fact i wish i would have used Pepito for example instead of Rybka.

Because now i seem like a moron and a Rybka fanboy and the whole point i was trying to make in the post, has been deflected and transformed to another point that (incorrectly) seemed i intentionally tried to pass for making Rybka to seem that it can be stronger than Houdini.
But no! Names were used randomly....

[Don]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►

Hahahaha, I bet Fritz 5.32 with a very specialized book is actually the best engine around, unfortunately no one bothered to put its special book in games.

Some guys here seem to be fetishist about Rybka not being the strongest, a behaviour found in the attitude of parents towards their kids.

Funny, they seem incorruptible, I bet even if I bribe these fanatics they will state that Rybka is the best.

Kai

I see a lot of unreasonableness on both sides. There are irrational people who seem to be "fist pumping" ecstatic if there is evidence something is stronger than Rybka and there are others who don't want to believe it is possible. Both sides are extreme points of views that seriously reveal a lack of objectivity and a high level of unreasonableness and emotionality.

This is very visible when you see them "interpret" things always in double standard fashion.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►

Hahahaha, I bet Fritz 5.32 with a very specialized book is actually the best engine around, unfortunately no one bothered to put its special book in games.

Some guys here seem to be fetishist about Rybka not being the strongest, a behaviour found in the attitude of parents towards their kids.

Funny, they seem incorruptible, I bet even if I bribe these fanatics they will state that Rybka is the best.

Kai

I see a lot of unreasonableness on both sides. There are irrational people who seem to be "fist pumping" ecstatic if there is evidence something is stronger than Rybka and there are others who don't want to believe it is possible. Both sides are extreme points of views that seriously reveal a lack of objectivity and a high level of unreasonableness and emotionality.

This is very visible when you see them "interpret" things always in double standard fashion.

But the newest version of Houdini is definitely stronger than Rybka 4,a fact hard to accept by most of the Rybka's hardcore fans....
Dr.D

[Graham Banks]

But the newest version of Houdini is definitely stronger than Rybka 4,a fact hard to accept by most of the Rybka's hardcore fans....
Dr.D

It's not the strength that's the issue Wael. Personally I don't care which engine is strongest. I think that this "hardcore Rybka fan" thing is just a convenient smokescreen used to gloss over the real issue.

[Dann Corbit]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►

Hahahaha, I bet Fritz 5.32 with a very specialized book is actually the best engine around, unfortunately no one bothered to put its special book in games.

Some guys here seem to be fetishist about Rybka not being the strongest, a behaviour found in the attitude of parents towards their kids.

Funny, they seem incorruptible, I bet even if I bribe these fanatics they will state that Rybka is the best.

Kai

I see a lot of unreasonableness on both sides. There are irrational people who seem to be "fist pumping" ecstatic if there is evidence something is stronger than Rybka and there are others who don't want to believe it is possible. Both sides are extreme points of views that seriously reveal a lack of objectivity and a high level of unreasonableness and emotionality.

This is very visible when you see them "interpret" things always in double standard fashion.

Here is something impressive:
Author a program like TSCP or SamChess.
A small program that plays chess correctly.
Don't believe me that it is impressive? Try it yourself (Don is not targeted here, of course).
Most people can't do it.

To write a very strong chess program is even more impressive. Is it easy to add 70 Elo to some already strong chess program? Give it a try with Stockfish, and let us know what a simple feat it is.

What Vas has done is impressive. What Robert has done is impressive.

I don't like the air of negativity that seems to have arisen, where people polarize themselves into camps and sling mud at one another.

Now, I am not going to see an ideal world in chess programming, because {unfortunately} humans are at the wheel here. And we humans can be pretty antagonistic and dumb, given the chance to act that way.

Here is my ideal world:
We all put effort into understanding ways to make chess algorithms play better chess and share our ideas.

Here's the catch:
Chess programming is intensely competitive. So the programmers are reluctant to share what they have gathered. Some are kind enough to share everything. Some share only a fraction. Either way, we get a swelll engine to play with, but it sure would be nice to know what makes it tick.

How do we solve it?
We can't. But we can aim in a better direction and we can temper our animosity by realizing that we are a bunch of grown men pushing wooden horsies around on cardboard squares and nobody lives or dies because of it.

IMO-YMMV

[Don]

Because and let's suppose that Houdini 1.5 is 3010 ELO and Rybka 4 2955 ELO in you conditions that is with a big set of random positions, then can we say that Houdini is generally the strongest program than Rybka by all means?

No! ►

Hahahaha, I bet Fritz 5.32 with a very specialized book is actually the best engine around, unfortunately no one bothered to put its special book in games.

Some guys here seem to be fetishist about Rybka not being the strongest, a behaviour found in the attitude of parents towards their kids.

Funny, they seem incorruptible, I bet even if I bribe these fanatics they will state that Rybka is the best.

Kai

I see a lot of unreasonableness on both sides. There are irrational people who seem to be "fist pumping" ecstatic if there is evidence something is stronger than Rybka and there are others who don't want to believe it is possible. Both sides are extreme points of views that seriously reveal a lack of objectivity and a high level of unreasonableness and emotionality.

This is very visible when you see them "interpret" things always in double standard fashion.

But the newest version of Houdini is definitely stronger than Rybka 4,a fact hard to accept by most of the Rybka's hardcore fans....
Dr.D

I agree. We clearly see how the process of self-deception works when others do it, but we don't see how it works when WE do it.

If someone doesn't want to believe Houdini is stronger they start making up all sorts of reasons why it must not be the way it appears. It's annoying isn't it?

It's that way with the Rybka / Fruit thing too. Nobody can explain why Rybka 4 is 300 ELO stronger than Fruit, but still insist it's nothing more than a clone.

So the argument seems to be that if something is stronger than something else, it's clearly an original work and not a clone unless it's Rybka, then it's a clone of Fruit!

2 plus 2 equals 4, unless I need it to be equal to something else.