Houdini - Cluster Rybka encounter....

[Albert Silver]

Houdini is not that brilliant as many think.....

It's just that Rybka is making horrible positional blunders and is getting squashed by Houdini.....

Something is wrong here,I don't know.....

Is it a bad special settings for the match

Is it a bad scaling and not getting the optimal communication with all the 64 processors that Rybka is using

Is it an experimental version of Rybka that is palying

Again,after watching the second game,I am pretty much convinced that Houdini is not that ingenius chess entity as much as there is definitely something wrong with cluster Rybka.......
Dr.D

I agree with you that Cluster Rybka did not play both games verry well (or strong as expected e.g. by me).
Houdini did well in both games. Most peoples interpret too much in this games, thats a little pity. It is just an interesting event, and both engines should get the same respect.

Regards, Clemens keck

I tend to agree. For one thing, there is simply no way the 2-0 actually represents their relative strength in these configurations. Despite having roughly 4x the horsepower, Houdini 3 is probably still the stronger player, though by how much is unclear. I am guessing 20-40 Elo.

The reason is that jumping from 16 cores to 64, is nothing like 2 to 8, and the general loss in parallel efficiency drops badly. So two double ups in speed would normally yield ~80-100 Elo, but here less, and on equal platforms Houdini 3 is already at least 100 Elo stronger than Rybka 4.1. Add to that that this is not actually a 64-core machine, but is a 64-core cluster, and the efficiency is bound to be even worse.

Don't get me wrong, Houdini played very well, and they were fun games, however it would be quite interesting if the owner of the 16-core machine that played, could test Deep Rybka 4.1 to get some comparisons in depth as opposed to the 64-core cluster.

[Modern Times]

jumping from 16 cores to 64, is nothing like 2 to 8, and the general loss in parallel efficiency drops badly. So two double ups in speed would normally yield ~80-100 Elo, but here less, and on equal platforms Houdini 3 is already at least 100 Elo stronger than Rybka 4.1. Add to that that this is not actually a 64-core machine, but is a 64-core cluster, and the efficiency is bound to be even worse.

Yes, people too easily forget this. it is not 64 cores vs 16 cores in the traditional sense. It is apples and oranges. But it has been said before that the shared memory model chokes with a lot of cores, so perhaps a counterview could be that the 64 core cluster is actually *better* than 64 traditional cores. We just don't know unfortunately.

[Laskos]

Houdini is not that brilliant as many think.....

It's just that Rybka is making horrible positional blunders and is getting squashed by Houdini.....

Something is wrong here,I don't know.....

Is it a bad special settings for the match

Is it a bad scaling and not getting the optimal communication with all the 64 processors that Rybka is using

Is it an experimental version of Rybka that is palying

Again,after watching the second game,I am pretty much convinced that Houdini is not that ingenius chess entity as much as there is definitely something wrong with cluster Rybka.......
Dr.D

I agree with you that Cluster Rybka did not play both games verry well (or strong as expected e.g. by me).
Houdini did well in both games. Most peoples interpret too much in this games, thats a little pity. It is just an interesting event, and both engines should get the same respect.

Regards, Clemens keck

I tend to agree. For one thing, there is simply no way the 2-0 actually represents their relative strength in these configurations. Despite having roughly 4x the horsepower, Houdini 3 is probably still the stronger player, though by how much is unclear. I am guessing 20-40 Elo.

The reason is that jumping from 16 cores to 64, is nothing like 2 to 8, and the general loss in parallel efficiency drops badly. So two double ups in speed would normally yield ~80-100 Elo, but here less, and on equal platforms Houdini 3 is already at least 100 Elo stronger than Rybka 4.1. Add to that that this is not actually a 64-core machine, but is a 64-core cluster, and the efficiency is bound to be even worse.

Don't get me wrong, Houdini played very well, and they were fun games, however it would be quite interesting if the owner of the 16-core machine that played, could test Deep Rybka 4.1 to get some comparisons in depth as opposed to the 64-core cluster.

Still, it's reasonable to say that up-to-date Rybka engine on the cluster is not the level of Houdini 3 (both on equal hardware). So, there are small chances we will see soon a Rybka 5 of the strength of Houdini 3 or stronger, and this fact can make news. Also, if parallelization is bad and Rybka engine is actually strong, then again, it shows these clusters generally as not very effective.

Kai

[Albert Silver]

Houdini is not that brilliant as many think.....

It's just that Rybka is making horrible positional blunders and is getting squashed by Houdini.....

Something is wrong here,I don't know.....

Is it a bad special settings for the match

Is it a bad scaling and not getting the optimal communication with all the 64 processors that Rybka is using

Is it an experimental version of Rybka that is palying

Again,after watching the second game,I am pretty much convinced that Houdini is not that ingenius chess entity as much as there is definitely something wrong with cluster Rybka.......
Dr.D

I agree with you that Cluster Rybka did not play both games verry well (or strong as expected e.g. by me).
Houdini did well in both games. Most peoples interpret too much in this games, thats a little pity. It is just an interesting event, and both engines should get the same respect.

Regards, Clemens keck

I tend to agree. For one thing, there is simply no way the 2-0 actually represents their relative strength in these configurations. Despite having roughly 4x the horsepower, Houdini 3 is probably still the stronger player, though by how much is unclear. I am guessing 20-40 Elo.

The reason is that jumping from 16 cores to 64, is nothing like 2 to 8, and the general loss in parallel efficiency drops badly. So two double ups in speed would normally yield ~80-100 Elo, but here less, and on equal platforms Houdini 3 is already at least 100 Elo stronger than Rybka 4.1. Add to that that this is not actually a 64-core machine, but is a 64-core cluster, and the efficiency is bound to be even worse.

Don't get me wrong, Houdini played very well, and they were fun games, however it would be quite interesting if the owner of the 16-core machine that played, could test Deep Rybka 4.1 to get some comparisons in depth as opposed to the 64-core cluster.

Still, it's reasonable to say that up-to-date Rybka engine on the cluster is not the level of Houdini 3 (both on equal hardware). So, there are small chances we will see soon a Rybka 5 of the strength of Houdini 3 or stronger, and this fact can make news. Also, if parallelization is bad and Rybka engine is actually strong, then again, it shows these clusters generally as not very effective.

Kai

Why would anyone believe this was anything but the normal cluster version of Deep Rybka 4.1? Did Lukas say this was a private beta that was being used? Personally I would have been quite shocked if it were.

[Laskos]

Houdini is not that brilliant as many think.....

It's just that Rybka is making horrible positional blunders and is getting squashed by Houdini.....

Something is wrong here,I don't know.....

Is it a bad special settings for the match

Is it a bad scaling and not getting the optimal communication with all the 64 processors that Rybka is using

Is it an experimental version of Rybka that is palying

Again,after watching the second game,I am pretty much convinced that Houdini is not that ingenius chess entity as much as there is definitely something wrong with cluster Rybka.......
Dr.D

I agree with you that Cluster Rybka did not play both games verry well (or strong as expected e.g. by me).
Houdini did well in both games. Most peoples interpret too much in this games, thats a little pity. It is just an interesting event, and both engines should get the same respect.

Regards, Clemens keck

I tend to agree. For one thing, there is simply no way the 2-0 actually represents their relative strength in these configurations. Despite having roughly 4x the horsepower, Houdini 3 is probably still the stronger player, though by how much is unclear. I am guessing 20-40 Elo.

The reason is that jumping from 16 cores to 64, is nothing like 2 to 8, and the general loss in parallel efficiency drops badly. So two double ups in speed would normally yield ~80-100 Elo, but here less, and on equal platforms Houdini 3 is already at least 100 Elo stronger than Rybka 4.1. Add to that that this is not actually a 64-core machine, but is a 64-core cluster, and the efficiency is bound to be even worse.

Don't get me wrong, Houdini played very well, and they were fun games, however it would be quite interesting if the owner of the 16-core machine that played, could test Deep Rybka 4.1 to get some comparisons in depth as opposed to the 64-core cluster.

Still, it's reasonable to say that up-to-date Rybka engine on the cluster is not the level of Houdini 3 (both on equal hardware). So, there are small chances we will see soon a Rybka 5 of the strength of Houdini 3 or stronger, and this fact can make news. Also, if parallelization is bad and Rybka engine is actually strong, then again, it shows these clusters generally as not very effective.

Kai

Why would anyone believe this was anything but the normal cluster version of Deep Rybka 4.1? Did Lukas say this was a private beta that was being used? Personally I would have been quite shocked if it were.

I am not a frequent follower of Rybka forum, but this was my understanding, that the cluster has the latest Rybka, and that all the development goes there. There were even rumors that the released Rybka 4.1 was downgraded on purpose to put the best on the clusters.

Kai

[Suj]

It is understood its the latest beta or strongest software according to how they were selling their cluster software/hardware.

[mwyoung]

Houdini is not that brilliant as many think.....

It's just that Rybka is making horrible positional blunders and is getting squashed by Houdini.....

Something is wrong here,I don't know.....

Is it a bad special settings for the match

Is it a bad scaling and not getting the optimal communication with all the 64 processors that Rybka is using

Is it an experimental version of Rybka that is palying

Again,after watching the second game,I am pretty much convinced that Houdini is not that ingenius chess entity as much as there is definitely something wrong with cluster Rybka.......
Dr.D

I know you were so looking forward to Houdini 3's demise. I guess you will have to wait for Houdini 4...

A nasty poster wrote yesterday that Robert is my enemy......

I don't like him but he's definitely not my enemy......

I've ordered the new Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 from a big PC store yesterday and I intend to buy Houdini's ChessBase version as I am a big fan of this company.....
Dr.D

What is not to like. Robert has done nothing every to you personally. But you go out of your way to run him and Houdini down.

I been testing chess programs since the 1980's. IMO Robert has help spark a new golden age in computer chess. For someone how loves computer chess, I thank him for his efforts.

I can't help but to feel glad when Houdini 3 does well, and his program shuts you and others down with its play over the board. Because I feel Robert has been treated very poorly by many here. And you and others were hoping for Houdini 3 to fail, so you could open up new lines of attack on Robert... Shameful

Houdini doesn't shut me down.......

Feel free to think what you like,but don't make big conclusions........

Houdini will fall sooner than later and you will be defending the new king of the hill eventually......
Infinite loop regards,
Dr.D

I have been doing computer chess since the first commercial unit was sold. I have seen them all come and go, but it is not about that is it. It is about being a jerk, or not being a jerk to someone because they wrote a chess program.

And yes Houdini's performance did shut you down and up...that is plan for all to see.

Here is an example of you before Houdini won, and what I am talking about in this post. Your words say it all DR.

One of many such quotes from Dr.Wael Deeb.
This is just the most recent.

"I do hope it will manage to smash Houdini's face this time along with the ugly face of his programmer........
Dr.D"

Shameful...

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I've ordered the new Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Sandy Bridge-E 3.5GHz (4.0GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 from a big PC store yesterday and I intend to buy Houdini's ChessBase version as I am a big fan of this company.....
Dr.D

Woooow, I see you will be equipped with the latest hardware & software.
H3 bench on this box would be around 17 mnps, ie the half of the H3_16 cores of the match.

It will be a while though until I get this system up & running Harun......

I am thinking of getting the latest Asus Rampage motherboard with a decent amount of ram along with a respectful Gigabyte video card as I like to play FBS from time to time
Best regards,
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Houdini will fall sooner than later and you will be defending the new king of the hill eventually......
Infinite loop regards,
Dr.D

Houdini can't fall.
It is computerized, it will keep its strength.

It will fall Shimon....

Nothing is infinite in this life regards,
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Houdini is not that brilliant as many think.....

It's just that Rybka is making horrible positional blunders and is getting squashed by Houdini.....

Something is wrong here,I don't know.....

Is it a bad special settings for the match

Is it a bad scaling and not getting the optimal communication with all the 64 processors that Rybka is using

Is it an experimental version of Rybka that is palying

Again,after watching the second game,I am pretty much convinced that Houdini is not that ingenius chess entity as much as there is definitely something wrong with cluster Rybka.......
Dr.D

I agree with you that Cluster Rybka did not play both games verry well (or strong as expected e.g. by me).
Houdini did well in both games. Most peoples interpret too much in this games, thats a little pity. It is just an interesting event, and both engines should get the same respect.

Regards, Clemens keck

I agree Clemens....

But....

This event has blown out the myth of Cluster Rybka and made a good advertisement for Houdini and a terrible one for Cluster Rybka....

I still hope that Cluster Rybka will somehow manage to smash Houdini although I have this strange inner feeling that this won't happen
Dr.D