The Champions 2012 8CPU

[Graham Banks]

Thanks Adam.

[Adam Hair]

Thanks Adam.

Sorry for the spam

By the way, 13 wins, 1 loss, and 3 draws is an impressive start for Houdini 3 against that field. Wow!

[Graham Banks]

Thanks Adam.

Sorry for the spam

By the way, 13 wins, 1 loss, and 3 draws is an impressive start for Houdini 3 against that field. Wow!

It's a monster! Wonder if it can maintain that impressive performance?

[voyagerOne]

Houdini is on fire.

The first game vs Hannibal was quite impressive with a rook sacrifice.

Really nice chess.

[Graham Banks]

THE CHAMPIONS 2012 8CPU

Xeon X5430x2 Octal
ChessGUI
2048mb hash per engine where possible
3-4-5 piece tablebases
Ponder off
WorldClass2012-3.cgb book (limited to 8 move depth)
40 moves in 29 minutes repeating (equivalent to CCRL 40/40)
All engines 64-bit 8CPU where available
4 cycles 52 rounds


Round 18

Hannibal 20121202 64-bit 8CPU v Equinox 1.65 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Rybka 4.1 64-bit 8CPU v Sting SF 2 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Stockfish 2.3.1 64-bit 8CPU v Bouquet 1.6 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Critter 1.6a 64-bit 8CPU v Akkad 0.52b 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Houdini 3 64-bit 8CPU v RobboLito 0.21Q 64-bit 8CPU (1-0)
Deep Shredder 12 64-bit 8CPU v Hiarcs 14 8CPU (0-1)
Deep Junior 13.3 64-bit 8CPU v Chiron 1.5 64-bit 8CPU (draw)


Standings after Round 18

15.5 - Houdini 3 64-bit 8CPU
11.0 - Critter 1.6a 64-bit 8CPU
10.5 - Equinox 1.65 64-bit 8CPU
10.5 - Rybka 4.1 64-bit 8CPU
10.0 - Sting SF 2 64-bit 8CPU
9.5 - Stockfish 2.3.1 64-bit 8CPU
9.0 - RobboLito 0.21Q 64-bit 8CPU
9.0 - Hiarcs 14 8CPU
8.5 - Bouquet 1.6 64-bit 8CPU
8.0 - Deep Junior 13.3 64-bit 8CPU
7.5 - Akkad 0.52b 64-bit 8CPU
6.5 - Chiron 1.5 64-bit 8CPU
5.5 - Deep Shredder 12 64-bit 8CPU
5.0 - Hannibal 20121202 64-bit 8CPU


Round 18 PGN - http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... p?id=28211

If you install TLCV (Tom's Live Chess Viewer) on your computer, you can watch the games live move by move. You'll also be able to chat to others following the tournament in the chatroom there.
http://home.pacific.net.au/~tommyinoz/client.zip
Host - GrahamCCRL.dyndns.org Port - 16083

There is also a live broadcast in Playchess.

[S.Taylor]

THE CHAMPIONS 2012 8CPU

Xeon X5430x2 Octal
ChessGUI
2048mb hash per engine where possible
3-4-5 piece tablebases
Ponder off
WorldClass2012-3.cgb book (limited to 8 move depth)
40 moves in 29 minutes repeating (equivalent to CCRL 40/40)
All engines 64-bit 8CPU where available
4 cycles 52 rounds


Round 18

Hannibal 20121202 64-bit 8CPU v Equinox 1.65 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Rybka 4.1 64-bit 8CPU v Sting SF 2 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Stockfish 2.3.1 64-bit 8CPU v Bouquet 1.6 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Critter 1.6a 64-bit 8CPU v Akkad 0.52b 64-bit 8CPU (draw)
Houdini 3 64-bit 8CPU v RobboLito 0.21Q 64-bit 8CPU (1-0)
Deep Shredder 12 64-bit 8CPU v Hiarcs 14 8CPU (0-1)
Deep Junior 13.3 64-bit 8CPU v Chiron 1.5 64-bit 8CPU (draw)


Standings after Round 18

15.5 - Houdini 3 64-bit 8CPU
11.0 - Critter 1.6a 64-bit 8CPU
10.5 - Equinox 1.65 64-bit 8CPU
10.5 - Rybka 4.1 64-bit 8CPU
10.0 - Sting SF 2 64-bit 8CPU
9.5 - Stockfish 2.3.1 64-bit 8CPU
9.0 - RobboLito 0.21Q 64-bit 8CPU
9.0 - Hiarcs 14 8CPU
8.5 - Bouquet 1.6 64-bit 8CPU
8.0 - Deep Junior 13.3 64-bit 8CPU
7.5 - Akkad 0.52b 64-bit 8CPU
6.5 - Chiron 1.5 64-bit 8CPU
5.5 - Deep Shredder 12 64-bit 8CPU
5.0 - Hannibal 20121202 64-bit 8CPU


Round 18 PGN - http://kirill-kryukov.com/chess/discuss ... p?id=28211

If you install TLCV (Tom's Live Chess Viewer) on your computer, you can watch the games live move by move. You'll also be able to chat to others following the tournament in the chatroom there.
http://home.pacific.net.au/~tommyinoz/client.zip
Host - GrahamCCRL.dyndns.org Port - 16083

There is also a live broadcast in Playchess.

Martin Thoreson used to answer me a few times, that his TCEC was not at all out of interest of which is better than which. But only for entertainment purposses.
I found it hard to work it out what entertainment there could be without taking an interest in the results, and even getting an idea as to which is better than which. (No one was saying we were going to make financial/legal claims based on that alone, as for that you need thousands of games).
But if there IS some interest in seeing who's best, then i still have nothing to go by, in assuming that Houdfini 1.5a or 2.0 would not also be on top of all the rest. (esp. when it's all play all).
So, whereas it looksd like Houdini 3 is superior to all the rest, from this and other tests or tournaments, where there is only the Houdini 3 without other houdinis, I cannot have from that, any feeling that computer chess has increased its elo in the past 2 years (even though i'm sure it has, atleast from other scources).
I don't even have proof that Houdini1.5a has been overtaken by anything besides later versions of Houdini.
I would prefer to have the 2 earlier houdinis in same matches as these.

Let's put it this way:

A rule that there not be more than one engine per author, perhaps may be considered possible to make exception in the case where it is suspected that the 2 top engines might both be by the same author, when there is atleast a year apart.

Would that make any sense, Graham?

[Graham Banks]

Martin Thoreson used to answer me a few times, that his TCEC was not at all out of interest of which is better than which. But only for entertainment purposses.
I found it hard to work it out what entertainment there could be without taking an interest in the results, and even getting an idea as to which is better than which. (No one was saying we were going to make financial/legal claims based on that alone, as for that you need thousands of games).
But if there IS some interest in seeing who's best, then i still have nothing to go by, in assuming that Houdfini 1.5a or 2.0 would not also be on top of all the rest. (esp. when it's all play all).
So, whereas it looksd like Houdini 3 is superior to all the rest, from this and other tests or tournaments, where there is only the Houdini 3 without other houdinis, I cannot have from that, any feeling that computer chess has increased its elo in the past 2 years (even though i'm sure it has, atleast from other scources).
I don't even have proof that Houdini1.5a has been overtaken by anything besides later versions of Houdini.
I would prefer to have the 2 earlier houdinis in same matches as these.

Let's put it this way:

A rule that there not be more than one engine per author, perhaps may be considered possible to make exception in the case where it is suspected that the 2 top engines might both be by the same author, when there is atleast a year apart.

Would that make any sense, Graham?

Hi Stuart,

you'll find that in our testing, Houdini 1.5a has probably played a similar field of opponents to what the later Houdinis have done.
That might help answer your doubts over comparisons in strength.

I sometimes include more than one version of an engine in a tournament, but not very often.

Graham.

[S.Taylor]

Martin Thoreson used to answer me a few times, that his TCEC was not at all out of interest of which is better than which. But only for entertainment purposses.
I found it hard to work it out what entertainment there could be without taking an interest in the results, and even getting an idea as to which is better than which. (No one was saying we were going to make financial/legal claims based on that alone, as for that you need thousands of games).
But if there IS some interest in seeing who's best, then i still have nothing to go by, in assuming that Houdfini 1.5a or 2.0 would not also be on top of all the rest. (esp. when it's all play all).
So, whereas it looksd like Houdini 3 is superior to all the rest, from this and other tests or tournaments, where there is only the Houdini 3 without other houdinis, I cannot have from that, any feeling that computer chess has increased its elo in the past 2 years (even though i'm sure it has, atleast from other scources).
I don't even have proof that Houdini1.5a has been overtaken by anything besides later versions of Houdini.
I would prefer to have the 2 earlier houdinis in same matches as these.

Let's put it this way:

A rule that there not be more than one engine per author, perhaps may be considered possible to make exception in the case where it is suspected that the 2 top engines might both be by the same author, when there is atleast a year apart.

Would that make any sense, Graham?

Hi Stuart,

you'll find that in our testing, Houdini 1.5a has probably played a similar field of opponents to what the later Houdinis have done.
That might help answer your doubts over comparisons in strength.

I sometimes include more than one version of an engine in a tournament, but not very often.

Graham.

If a FEW of the engines are now a little stronger, maybe you can add one more Houdini to see it all together? (IF there is another one which looks like it also is on top)?

But you're right, I'm really sorry that I did not follow all your testings very attentively during the past years.

[Graham Banks]

If a FEW of the engines are now a little stronger, maybe you can add one more Houdini to see it all together? (IF there is another one which looks like it also is on top)?

Perhaps in a future tournament.

But you're right, I'm really sorry that I did not follow all your testings very attentively during the past years.

No problem. Different things interest different people at different times.

[S.Taylor]