Houdini 2.0 running for the IPON

[IWB]

at http://www.inwoba.de

Will the new Houdini top the old one?

Have fun
Ingo

[IWB]

Hi,

This morning I discovered that I forgot to include the Gaviota Tablebases. Even if I only use the 4pc version the current run is not according to my normal standard. As it is interesting to see if there is any difference I will finish this run and start it imediately again WITH 4pc GTB. The latter will be included in my list.

As a side effect we have a nice test about the influence of Tbs!

Sorry for the inconvinience
Ingo

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Ingo,

now it's more interesting!
Your mistake was a good job!



Best
Frank

Go Gaviota TBs go ...

[Jouni]

I don't except any measurable boost from TBs. Note, that Clemens Keck test gives +26 now without tablebases in core i7.

Jouni

[lkaufman]

Hi,

This morning I discovered that I forgot to include the Gaviota Tablebases. Even if I only use the 4pc version the current run is not according to my normal standard. As it is interesting to see if there is any difference I will finish this run and start it imediately again WITH 4pc GTB. The latter will be included in my list.

As a side effect we have a nice test about the influence of Tbs!

Sorry for the inconvinience
Ingo

Just for clarification, did you forget to include the Tablebases just for Houdini, or for the opposing programs as well? In the second case, we won't learn anything about the influence of Tbs, just perhaps about which programs need them more.

[IWB]

Hi,

This morning I discovered that I forgot to include the Gaviota Tablebases. Even if I only use the 4pc version the current run is not according to my normal standard. As it is interesting to see if there is any difference I will finish this run and start it imediately again WITH 4pc GTB. The latter will be included in my list.

As a side effect we have a nice test about the influence of Tbs!

Sorry for the inconvinience
Ingo

Just for clarification, did you forget to include the Tablebases just for Houdini, or for the opposing programs as well? In the second case, we won't learn anything about the influence of Tbs, just perhaps about which programs need them more.

When "creating" the engine one has to add the TBs Path to the Gaviota Tbs. Thats what I forgot. So, all other engines used their bases (if they are able) just Houdini did not get that chance. This missing is simply against my own rules, so this run will never included into the IPON!

And to make it even more clear: ALL Engines used Tablebases just not Houdini!

Nonetheless, I already started the run with the GTB (on one comp) for Houdini, but on request I use the standard version and this will be the Version I include in the IPON.

Most likely I am courious enough to repeat it a third time with GTB AND the PRO version to see if there is a difference.

Everything on start in a few minutes!

Bye
Ingo

[Albert Silver]

Hi,

This morning I discovered that I forgot to include the Gaviota Tablebases. Even if I only use the 4pc version the current run is not according to my normal standard. As it is interesting to see if there is any difference I will finish this run and start it imediately again WITH 4pc GTB. The latter will be included in my list.

As a side effect we have a nice test about the influence of Tbs!

Sorry for the inconvinience
Ingo

Just for clarification, did you forget to include the Tablebases just for Houdini, or for the opposing programs as well? In the second case, we won't learn anything about the influence of Tbs, just perhaps about which programs need them more.

As Ingo said, you need to actually set them in the UCI options, and then save this as the engine profile. In my experience, FWIW, Houdini is the engine that needs them the least, though with a couple of thousand games, you will inevitably hit situations where they can be the difference between a win and a draw.

[IWB]

The final result was:


[tt]Houdini 2.0 Pro

Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Komodo64 3 SSE42 (2967) 60.5 - 39.5 60.50% Perf=3041
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Deep Rybka 4.1 SSE42 (2955) 59.0 - 41.0 59.00% Perf=3018
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Critter 1.2 (2954) 57.0 - 43.0 57.00% Perf=3002
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Stockfish 2.1.1 JA (2943) 61.5 - 38.5 61.50% Perf=3024
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Naum 4.2 (2826) 78.0 - 22.0 78.00% Perf=3045
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Deep Shredder 12 (2800) 75.5 - 24.5 75.50% Perf=2995
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Gull 1.2 (2797) 82.0 - 18.0 82.00% Perf=3060
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Deep Sjeng c't 2010 32b (2787) 79.5 - 20.5 79.50% Perf=3022
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Spike 1.4 32b (2783) 82.5 - 17.5 82.50% Perf=3052
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Protector 1.4.0 (2760) 88.5 - 11.5 88.50% Perf=3114
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Hannibal 1.1 (2758) 87.5 - 12.5 87.50% Perf=3096
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - spark-1.0 SSE42 (2758) 83.5 - 16.5 83.50% Perf=3039
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - HIARCS 13.2 MP 32b (2752) 84.0 - 16.0 84.00% Perf=3040
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Deep Junior 12.5 (2730) 79.5 - 20.5 79.50% Perf=2965
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Zappa Mexico II (2716) 85.5 - 14.5 85.50% Perf=3024
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Deep Onno 1-2-70 (2686) 88.5 - 11.5 88.50% Perf=3040
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Strelka 2.0 B (2674) 90.0 - 10.0 90.00% Perf=3055
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Umko 1.2 SSE42 (2666) 89.0 - 11.0 89.00% Perf=3029
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Loop 13.6/2007 (2620) 94.0 - 6.0 94.00% Perf=3097
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Jonny 4.00 32b (2616) 93.5 - 6.5 93.50% Perf=3079
Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 - Crafty 23.3 JA (2598) 95.0 - 5.0 95.00% Perf=3109
1694.0 - 406.0 80.67% Perf=3016


2100 out of 2100 games played[/tt]

Which would be official 3016 Elo with Bayeselo in the IPON as well!

The new test with GTB is running!

Bye
Ingo

PS: Have a look here: http://forum.computerschach.de/cgi-bin/ ... ?pid=41321
THats how I expected it to look like!

[IWB]

Hi,

Just one more remark: Today is the most successfull day since my website exists - and there are more than 3 hours to go.

Thank you for that!

Bye
Ingo

[Don]

Hi,

This morning I discovered that I forgot to include the Gaviota Tablebases. Even if I only use the 4pc version the current run is not according to my normal standard. As it is interesting to see if there is any difference I will finish this run and start it imediately again WITH 4pc GTB. The latter will be included in my list.

As a side effect we have a nice test about the influence of Tbs!

Sorry for the inconvinience
Ingo

Are these tables used in the tree search, or just to find the best move from the root position?

Or does it depend on the program?