TCEC stage 3 , New Houdini starts with a bang

[Laskos]

To see how disproportionate the action to replay the game is, for at most 5-10 ELO points loss in ONE game, they changed the result in the whole Stage 3 by 1 point between Komodo and Houdini, and that in 56 games each amounts to 13 ELO points in the WHOLE stage.

If you're saying that changing the result in the whole stage by 13 Elo points is a big thing, you're contravening your own argument.

The point you apparently missed was that a 5 ELO points mistake in a SINGLE game resulted in a 13 ELO points mistake for the whole stage.

And 13 ELO points mistake for the whole stage is a big thing, right? So if a small matter (5-10 ELO in one game) has significant consequences (13 ELO for the whole stage), then it's not a small matter after all, and your argument contradicts itself.

Also, you cannot argue that 5-10 ELO is a small difference that wouldn't change the outcome - because apparently it did.

The 5 ELO points difference in Komodo settings with probability of 98% didn't have any impact on the outcome of the first game, and these 5 ELO points in single game are negligible. It's replaying of the game which impacted seriously the stage. It flipped the fortunes of a single game approximately by the value of the drawelo of 250 ELO points. Replaying the game had a pretty devastating and an expected a priori effect on the outcome of a single previously won by Houdini game. Come on, humans have pretty good intuition on these matters, everybody knew that the decision favors Komodo for that game massively.

[MikeB]

To see how disproportionate the action to replay the game is, for at most 5-10 ELO points loss in ONE game, they changed the result in the whole Stage 3 by 1 point between Komodo and Houdini, and that in 56 games each amounts to 13 ELO points in the WHOLE stage.

If you're saying that changing the result in the whole stage by 13 Elo points is a big thing, you're contravening your own argument.

The point you apparently missed was that a 5 ELO points mistake in a SINGLE game resulted in a 13 ELO points mistake for the whole stage.

And 13 ELO points mistake for the whole stage is a big thing, right? So if a small matter (5-10 ELO in one game) has significant consequences (13 ELO for the whole stage), then it's not a small matter after all, and your argument contradicts itself.

Also, you cannot argue that 5-10 ELO is a small difference that wouldn't change the outcome - because apparently it did.

The 5 ELO points difference in Komodo settings with probability of 98% didn't have any impact on the outcome of the first game, and these 5 ELO points in single game are negligible. It's replaying of the game which impacted seriously the stage. It flipped the fortunes of a single game approximately by the value of the drawelo of 250 ELO points. Replaying the game had a pretty devastating and an expected a priori effect on the outcome of a single previously won by Houdini game. Come on, humans have pretty good intuition on these matters, everybody knew that the decision favors Komodo for that game massively.

+1 huge mistake to replay the game...

[Ralf Müller]

All engines now are set up to their optimal settings. So now the result will exactly be as we wanted it to be. If Houdini is indeed stronger than Komodo, than Houdini will be in front of Komodo at the tournaments end.
Why complain?

[gotogo]

I'll bet Robert picks up tons of supporters now!

This gives TCEC and Komodo a yuge Black Eye!
They topped it off by silencing the complainers by muting them making this matter worse by pissing off many ppl just so Mark can talk about eating ice-cream further rubbing it in Houdini's face!

All this shows the TCEC was wrong and the majority was right!
TCEC did not consult Robert either you know why; It's called NEPOTISM for Komodo.
At least when they done something about the Stockfish incident they consulted all involved but not this time Robert was totally ignored!
It may be possible that Mark did not ask to replay but he sure did not suggest to contact Robert nor did he offer for game to stand. Very one sided!

I wonder where most of the sponsorship comes from for TCEC?
So now we move on knowing that TCEC favors Komodo in every instance and the spectators are worthless to them. I thought this was suppost to be entertainment not dictatortainment!

[JJJ]

All engines now are set up to their optimal settings. So now the result will exactly be as we wanted it to be. If Houdini is indeed stronger than Komodo, than Houdini will be in front of Komodo at the tournaments end.
Why complain?

But If Houdini is equal, that's might change everything.

[gotogo]

Why was houdini and komodo first game I always thought tournaments went like 1vs8 2vs7 3vs6 and 4vs5 to start!

Just my opinion of possible scenario!

May be no substance to this at all but I want to throw it out there anyway!
This was the first game so it could be corrected like it was!!! How convenient!
What if they were testing Houdini to see how strong it was with the same settings as stage Two? Just a what if, more than likely not true at all!

Remember Komodo's new engine came in an email with the new settings so no reason for wrong setup!
Now game was palyed and Houdini was crushing Komodo at the end and everyone was excited! What a game!

Now they want to repay with new settings but now the game was now in komodos hash and Komodo now has an advantage by not playing move that he lost to.
That is what I think but might not be true at all!
If someone can explain the hash thing to me It would help to clear up some of my disgust towards TCEC's resolve!
I am concerned that Komodo now had that game in hash to reference!

[mjlef]

What was wrong with Komodo's settings? People should at least be entitled to a proper explanation by the organizers.

The differences can be found in the initial game comment.

Before:

Code: Select all

BlackEngineOptions: Use Syzygy=true; Syzygy Probe Depth=2; Syzygy Probe Limit=6; Dynamism=110;

After:

Code: Select all

BlackEngineOptions: Contempt=7;

To summarize, removing custom Syzygy probe options and "Dynamism" (whatever that is), and adding Contempt 7.

It would be nice to hear from Mark what the effects of these changes are likely to be.

The values "Before" were close to to optimal. The ELO loss was no larger than 5-10 ELO points and hardly the reason for the lost game. Seems unfair to Houdini to replay the game.

I do not think that we know the elo loss at long time control and there is no basis to claim that the wrong setting is not the reason for the lost game.

I see nothing unfair for Houdini.

It is only fair if the game had been replayed no matter what.

That this game would have been replayed no matter what is far from clear. The rules are silent on this situation and what if it had been discovered only much later?

What if Komodo had drawn or won "despite its disadvantage"? I think most people would have considered it fair not to replay the game in that case.

Although I did not make the decision to replay the game, Anton made clear in the email the game would have been replayed whatever the result of the first game is. That is only fair. I would have actually insisted on it especially if Komodo was winning but he already said it would be replayed. Fair is fair. I do not want Komodo to get an unfair advantage due to a simple error in setup.

[Ralf Müller]

If Houdini is equal, then both engines will now finish equally (without random factors). So that's completely fair, isn't it?

The game was simply restarted. ALL engines start at 0 points, no engine has an advantage.

[syzygy]

If Houdini is equal, then both engines will now finish equally (without random factors). So that's completely fair, isn't it?

By that reasoning it would always be fair to replay any game. So the reasoning is flawed.

If after flipping a coin you decide to flip it again on the basis of a condition linked, however remotely, to the outcome of the first flip, then you have made the experiment unfair. This is elementary statistics.

If, before the first flip, it was already 100% certain that the first flip would not count and a second flip would be taken, then there is no problem (apart from the waste of time for the first flip).

In the present case the rules are silent on the matter. In such a case it seems fairer to at least collect the participants' views on the matter before taking a decision.

Of course from now on it is clear that any misconfiguration, however insignificant, will result in cancellation of all affected games regardless of their number and the time that has passed. And, most importantly, regardless of the wishes of the affected participants.

[Branko Radovanovic]

The 5 ELO points difference in Komodo settings with probability of 98% didn't have any impact on the outcome of the first game, and these 5 ELO points in single game are negligible. It's replaying of the game which impacted seriously the stage. It flipped the fortunes of a single game approximately by the value of the drawelo of 250 ELO points. Replaying the game had a pretty devastating and an expected a priori effect on the outcome of a single previously won by Houdini game. Come on, humans have pretty good intuition on these matters, everybody knew that the decision favors Komodo for that game massively.

"Someone stole a lottery ticket from Komodo and gave it to Houdini. Then, the ticket won the jackpot. Taking the jackpot from Houdini and giving it to Komodo would have a devastating effect on Houdini because it would cost him millions, while the value of the lottery ticket in the moment it was stolen was pretty much negligible, being a million-to-one longshot. So, this decision favors Komodo massively."

That's really just a rephrasing of my earlier reply to Ronald de Man: one either compares a priori with a priori or a posteriori with a posteriori - one cannot mix the two, because it leads to faulty conclusions like the one above.