TalkChess.com

I'm running matches on three Windows 7/8 Intel computers with a total of 40 cores between Komodo 7a (released this morning) and Houdini 4, single core games. Most of the games are at 5' + 3" except the games on the quad are at 2' + 1". Five man Syzygy for both, ponder off, book derived from TWIC high-level games, variable length.
Results after 1552 games are a virtual tie; Komodo is just 7 games ahead. Since it is clear that Komodo scales better with more time than Houdini, I think it is fair to say that we have finally surpassed Houdini in strength at most reasonable time controls, at least on Intel machines. Now there remains only Stockfish to surpass, a tall order to be sure.

lkaufman wrote:I'm running matches on three Windows 7/8 Intel computers with a total of 40 cores between Komodo 7a (released this morning) and Houdini 4, single core games. Most of the games are at 5' + 3" except the games on the quad are at 2' + 1". Five man Syzygy for both, ponder off, book derived from TWIC high-level games, variable length.
Results after 1552 games are a virtual tie; Komodo is just 7 games ahead. Since it is clear that Komodo scales better with more time than Houdini, I think it is fair to say that we have finally surpassed Houdini in strength at most reasonable time controls, at least on Intel machines. Now there remains only Stockfish to surpass, a tall order to be sure.

Really fair to say ?
http://www.clemens-keck.de/livegames/

1) Komodo 1223.00 64-bit Sy5
Hash tables: 2048 MB
Book: mega-6mvs.ctg

2) Houdini 4 Pro x64 Sy5
Hash tables: 2048 MB
Book: mega-6mvs.ctg

conditions:
- 50 game match 60min +15sec
- engines 6cpu ponder ON, 2GB hashtables
- both engines use 5men syzygy bases
- 6mvs book, random play

Houdini 4 Pro x64 Sy5 - Komodo 1223.00 64-bit Sy5 ended in a 27,5 - 22,5 victory for Houdini 4

lkaufman wrote: Now there remains only Stockfish to surpass, a tall order to be sure.

Yes indeed, but at least you have the source code to study, that is what open source is for. Not easy of course !

lkaufman wrote:Since it is clear that Komodo scales better with more time than Houdini

I think it is a Komodo problem, not an advantage - Komodo scales worse than Houdini at STC.

lkaufman wrote:I think it is fair to say that we have finally surpassed Houdini in strength at most reasonable time controls, at least on Intel machines

I'm really glad to hear this, but Houdini 4 released six months ago - who knows how strong Houdini 5 will be?

majortom wrote:

lkaufman wrote:Since it is clear that Komodo scales better with more time than Houdini

I think it is a Komodo problem, not an advantage - Komodo scales worse than Houdini at STC.

lkaufman wrote:I think it is fair to say that we have finally surpassed Houdini in strength at most reasonable time controls, at least on Intel machines

I'm really glad to hear this, but Houdini 4 released six months ago - who knows how strong Houdini 5 will be?

Regarding scaling, since Stockfish also scales better than Houdini it looks more like a Houdini problem. Anyway, that doesn't matter, the point is that whatever Komodo's results at short time control are vs. Houdini they should be better at long time control. This was borne out by the current TCEC semifinal, where Komodo finished a full four points ahead of Houdini.
Regarding Houdini, who knows if there will even be a Houdini 5?

lkaufman wrote:Regarding Houdini, who knows if there will even be a Houdini 5?

Agree. But I hope Robert will not give up so easily - competition is good for progress.

lkaufman wrote:Regarding scaling, since Stockfish also scales better than Houdini it looks more like a Houdini problem.

Not agree. I'm sure that SF has more ELO above the H4 at LTC than at STC.

majortom wrote:

lkaufman wrote:Regarding scaling, since Stockfish also scales better than Houdini it looks more like a Houdini problem.

Not agree. I'm sure that SF has more ELO above the H4 at LTC than at STC.

That means you do agree with me. I said SF scales better than Houdini, meaning with more time, just like Komodo does.

lkaufman wrote:

majortom wrote:

lkaufman wrote:Since it is clear that Komodo scales better with more time than Houdini

I think it is a Komodo problem, not an advantage - Komodo scales worse than Houdini at STC.

lkaufman wrote:I think it is fair to say that we have finally surpassed Houdini in strength at most reasonable time controls, at least on Intel machines

I'm really glad to hear this, but Houdini 4 released six months ago - who knows how strong Houdini 5 will be?

Regarding scaling, since Stockfish also scales better than Houdini it looks more like a Houdini problem. Anyway, that doesn't matter, the point is that whatever Komodo's results at short time control are vs. Houdini they should be better at long time control. This was borne out by the current TCEC semifinal, where Komodo finished a full four points ahead of Houdini.
Regarding Houdini, who knows if there will even be a Houdini 5?

..This was borne out (?!).. in 16 games
with Komodo dev at drawscore=0, while Houdini with default contempt
While you don't react on the formentioned 50 LTC games in Clemens Keck match 27,5 - 22,5 for Houdini 4

beram wrote:

lkaufman wrote:

majortom wrote:

lkaufman wrote:Since it is clear that Komodo scales better with more time than Houdini

I think it is a Komodo problem, not an advantage - Komodo scales worse than Houdini at STC.

lkaufman wrote:I think it is fair to say that we have finally surpassed Houdini in strength at most reasonable time controls, at least on Intel machines

I'm really glad to hear this, but Houdini 4 released six months ago - who knows how strong Houdini 5 will be?

Regarding scaling, since Stockfish also scales better than Houdini it looks more like a Houdini problem. Anyway, that doesn't matter, the point is that whatever Komodo's results at short time control are vs. Houdini they should be better at long time control. This was borne out by the current TCEC semifinal, where Komodo finished a full four points ahead of Houdini.
Regarding Houdini, who knows if there will even be a Houdini 5?

..This was borne out (?!).. in 16 games
with Komodo dev at drawscore=0, while Houdini with default contempt
While you don't react on the formentioned 50 LTC games in Clemens Keck match 27,5 - 22,5 for Houdini 4

The TCEC semifinal was 48 rounds, not 16. Komodo scored 4 points more than Houdini after 48 round robin games each.
Regarding Clemens match, first of all Komodo 7 is version 1227, four improvements later than the one he ran, and furthermore, he doesn't use color reversal of openings, which greatly increases the luck factor.