I think this is the first time I've posted WINDOWS results. It seems that our earlier results on Linux overstated how we would do on Windows, at least vs. Houdini, but this is no longer an issue. Anyway even you predicted that K6 would catch H2, so you should not be surprised that we have done so.
I'm not surprised that you would eventually catch up with Houdini 2.
I am surprised that you continue to make claims about being superior to Houdini 2 at non-blitz TC without playing any games against Houdini 2 at non-blitz TC. Don't you learn anything from your past failures?
Robert
I played 1621 games against Houdini 1.5 at 30 minutes (+18 seconds), which is certainly not blitz. Both of the rating lists that use time controls close to this (40/20 and 40/40) have Houdini 1.5 ABOVE Houdini 2.0. If we beat the top rated Houdini (at similar tl) it is reasonable to expect that we will beat lower rated Houdini versions.
Actually the only reason I ran vs. H 1.5 and not vs. 2.0 is that I only have Houdini 2.0 on my non-sse4 machine. Apparently I can't just copy it to the other machine due to copy-protection. My copy was a gift from someone who no longer needed it. Can you tell me how to transfer it to my newer computer? Then I'll start running vs. H2, even if there is no evidence that it is stronger at longer tc, so this is probably just a waste of computer time. Most likely, I'll find that indeed H2 is at least a few elo stronger than H1.5 at these levels. I doubt that you actually ran backwards for a whole year.
Finally, while we have had some failures in predicting ratings, apparently due to the Linux/Windows gap, we have never failed to show a clear improvement (on almost every rating list at all levels) of each release over all previous ones. We are now the only top engine (excluding Rybka which has only had one new version in several years) which can make that claim.
bupalo wrote:yes Don and please stop this thread. I wanted to make compliments to komodo because I noticed its very good analysis and subtitles manouvre of pieces in quite positions. But even houdini is great (and critter is good too!). No matter who is the strongest of the two so you can't compare apples to pears it's the first thing you tell to children. it's better houdini or komodo, it's like to discuss if the bishop is better than the knight. Maybe the bishop is better but you know the in some position is better the kight. So please continue to develop these 2 monsters that's matter
The competition between Komodo and Houdini will continue, and I am sure that this rivalry has given both programs extra incentive to improve. As you say, in some position types one is stronger, in others the other is superior. It is just like asking who was stronger, Kasparov or Karpov in 1985. The question was answered by direct matches, but of course in certain types of positions Karpov was superior even if he finished slightly behind in the matches. Unfortunately there is no better way known to answer the question "which is stronger" than to play a long match, but clearly someone who uses engines to analyze should own at least two or three top engines, preferably ones not too closely related to each other (i.e. Houdini plus Ivanhoe doesn't count as two engines). I use both Komodo and Houdini myself, occasionally Rybka, Critter, or Stockfish if I need a third opinion.
Thanks for your kind words. It's comforting to know that my opinion about Komodo being "ideal" for IDeA is shared by others.
Definitly yes, 3 engines is the best. I tend to prefer Critter in the 10% of the cases (I play corrispondence chess) I use its analysys. Here a situation where like Houdini tends to judge a potision in a proper way
[d] 1r3k2/p1n2p1p/b3p1pP/n2pP1P1/2pP4/2P1NN2/1P3PB1/2K4R b - - 2 25
bupalo wrote:yes Don and please stop this thread. I wanted to make compliments to komodo because I noticed its very good analysis and subtitles manouvre of pieces in quite positions. But even houdini is great (and critter is good too!). No matter who is the strongest of the two so you can't compare apples to pears it's the first thing you tell to children. it's better houdini or komodo, it's like to discuss if the bishop is better than the knight. Maybe the bishop is better but you know the in some position is better the kight. So please continue to develop these 2 monsters that's matter
The competition between Komodo and Houdini will continue, and I am sure that this rivalry has given both programs extra incentive to improve. As you say, in some position types one is stronger, in others the other is superior. It is just like asking who was stronger, Kasparov or Karpov in 1985. The question was answered by direct matches, but of course in certain types of positions Karpov was superior even if he finished slightly behind in the matches. Unfortunately there is no better way known to answer the question "which is stronger" than to play a long match, but clearly someone who uses engines to analyze should own at least two or three top engines, preferably ones not too closely related to each other (i.e. Houdini plus Ivanhoe doesn't count as two engines). I use both Komodo and Houdini myself, occasionally Rybka, Critter, or Stockfish if I need a third opinion.
Thanks for your kind words. It's comforting to know that my opinion about Komodo being "ideal" for IDeA is shared by others.
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Out of curiosity, can you quantify the progress? For example, the majority of posts in this thread were written between October 6 and October 8. Can you say how much faster the program is now (November 3) than it was then? Or is this an "all or nothing" type of problem? Thanks.
