| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex Newman
Joined: 03 Mar 2012
Posts: 76
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
  |
|
Strelka 5.5 seems to be the strongest 1CPU engine in the world.
TC is 40 moves in 30sec repeating:
Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini 1.5 : 73 - 55 with 112 draws (240 games)
Strelka 5.5 vs Critter 1.4 : 48 - 36 with 115 draws (199 games)
Very strong in opening and middlegame. Has room for improvements in the endgame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jouni Uski
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1166
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
In my short test under Fritz 12 GUI (no ponder) Strelka lost most games against Komodo 3 by bad time control - the old Houdini/Ivanhoe bug again 
_________________
Jouni |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Newman
Joined: 03 Mar 2012
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
I used CuteChess to run the matches.
Houdini lost 2 games on time in the first match.
Strelka lost 2 games on time (in a drawn position) in the second match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Kaufman
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 1228
Location: Maryland USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
| LudiBuda wrote: |
Strelka 5.5 seems to be the strongest 1CPU engine in the world.
TC is 40 moves in 30sec repeating:
Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini 1.5 : 73 - 55 with 112 draws (240 games)
Strelka 5.5 vs Critter 1.4 : 48 - 36 with 115 draws (199 games)
Very strong in opening and middlegame. Has room for improvements in the endgame. |
The time limit you cite is far too fast to justify any conclusion about which is the strongest 1 cpu unit in the world. Also, at the time limit you are using, you need to run Houdini 2.0 rather than 1.5, because it is well established that Houdini 2.0 is much stronger than 1.5 at bullet chess, just not at normal chess. If Strelka 5.5 can convincingly defeat Houdini 2.0 at any time limit, it will at least demonstrate that it is not basically just a Houdini clone. Also, you don't mention this, but presumably these are all just 32 bit versions, so until Strelka 64 bit is released your conclusion is wrong for yet another reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Houdart
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 1250
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:00 am Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
| lkaufman wrote: |
| The time limit you cite is far too fast to justify any conclusion about which is the strongest 1 cpu unit in the world. Also, at the time limit you are using, you need to run Houdini 2.0 rather than 1.5, because it is well established that Houdini 2.0 is much stronger than 1.5 at bullet chess, just not at normal chess. If Strelka 5.5 can convincingly defeat Houdini 2.0 at any time limit, it will at least demonstrate that it is not basically just a Houdini clone. Also, you don't mention this, but presumably these are all just 32 bit versions, so until Strelka 64 bit is released your conclusion is wrong for yet another reason. |
Larry, below some facts to enlighten your confusion:
1) At ultra-fast TC the difference in strength between Houdini 2 and Houdini 1.5 is exactly 24 Elo +/- 2 Elo.
2) Strelka 5.5 does not "convincingly defeat Houdini 2.0", in fact it is 10 to 20 Elo weaker than Houdini 1.5a. See the other thread about Strelka 5.5 in the "General Topics" Section.
3) Strelka 5 eval and search are 99% identical to Houdini 1.5a, but all the surrounding code (Time Management, UCI input/output handling etc) appears to be Ivanhoe-inspired or original.
4) The whole Strelka 5.5 business, with a cheat table containing 30,000 test positions, appears to be a late April Fools joke.
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Kaufman
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 1228
Location: Maryland USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:16 am Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
| Houdini wrote: |
| lkaufman wrote: |
| The time limit you cite is far too fast to justify any conclusion about which is the strongest 1 cpu unit in the world. Also, at the time limit you are using, you need to run Houdini 2.0 rather than 1.5, because it is well established that Houdini 2.0 is much stronger than 1.5 at bullet chess, just not at normal chess. If Strelka 5.5 can convincingly defeat Houdini 2.0 at any time limit, it will at least demonstrate that it is not basically just a Houdini clone. Also, you don't mention this, but presumably these are all just 32 bit versions, so until Strelka 64 bit is released your conclusion is wrong for yet another reason. |
Larry, below some facts to enlighten your confusion:
1) At ultra-fast TC the difference in strength between Houdini 2 and Houdini 1.5 is exactly 24 Elo +/- 2 Elo.
2) Strelka 5.5 does not "convincingly defeat Houdini 2.0", in fact it is 10 to 20 Elo weaker than Houdini 1.5a. See the other thread about Strelka 5.5 in the "General Topics" Section.
3) Strelka 5 eval and search are 99% identical to Houdini 1.5a, but all the surrounding code (Time Management, UCI input/output handling etc) appears to be Ivanhoe-inspired or original.
4) The whole Strelka 5.5 business, with a cheat table containing 30,000 test positions, appears to be a late April Fools joke.
Robert |
I wasn't confused, in fact for once I was on your side. My point was that Houdini 2 is stronger than 1.5 at game in a minute or faster, just as you say, so his test was invalid for determining the strongest 32 bit single core engine even at bullet chess. I don't doubt your statement that Strelka eval and search are 99% Houdini, but why in your opinion is Strelka 5.1 apparently a bit weaker than Houdini 1.5, just time-control issues?
The existence of free near-clones of top programs hurts both of us, so we have a common interest here. I imagine that Strelka's author felt justified by the fact that you did the same to Ippolit originally, but two wrongs don't make a right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Newman
Joined: 03 Mar 2012
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
Ok, so to be perfectly correct, Strelka 5.5 is the strongest engine under my test conditions. Good enough?
I don't see why Strelka has to be the Houdini clone. Houdini 1.5 is just slightly modified Robbolito. I disaassembled its search and found only minor changes compared to the Robbolito 0.085
If Strelka author also started from the Robbolito base, he will end up with the engine very similar to Houdini. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr.Wael Deeb
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 8613
Location: Amman,Jordan
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:40 pm Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
| lkaufman wrote: |
| Houdini wrote: |
| lkaufman wrote: |
| The time limit you cite is far too fast to justify any conclusion about which is the strongest 1 cpu unit in the world. Also, at the time limit you are using, you need to run Houdini 2.0 rather than 1.5, because it is well established that Houdini 2.0 is much stronger than 1.5 at bullet chess, just not at normal chess. If Strelka 5.5 can convincingly defeat Houdini 2.0 at any time limit, it will at least demonstrate that it is not basically just a Houdini clone. Also, you don't mention this, but presumably these are all just 32 bit versions, so until Strelka 64 bit is released your conclusion is wrong for yet another reason. |
Larry, below some facts to enlighten your confusion:
1) At ultra-fast TC the difference in strength between Houdini 2 and Houdini 1.5 is exactly 24 Elo +/- 2 Elo.
2) Strelka 5.5 does not "convincingly defeat Houdini 2.0", in fact it is 10 to 20 Elo weaker than Houdini 1.5a. See the other thread about Strelka 5.5 in the "General Topics" Section.
3) Strelka 5 eval and search are 99% identical to Houdini 1.5a, but all the surrounding code (Time Management, UCI input/output handling etc) appears to be Ivanhoe-inspired or original.
4) The whole Strelka 5.5 business, with a cheat table containing 30,000 test positions, appears to be a late April Fools joke.
Robert |
I wasn't confused, in fact for once I was on your side. My point was that Houdini 2 is stronger than 1.5 at game in a minute or faster, just as you say, so his test was invalid for determining the strongest 32 bit single core engine even at bullet chess. I don't doubt your statement that Strelka eval and search are 99% Houdini, but why in your opinion is Strelka 5.1 apparently a bit weaker than Houdini 1.5, just time-control issues?
The existence of free near-clones of top programs hurts both of us, so we have a common interest here. I imagine that Strelka's author felt justified by the fact that you did the same to Ippolit originally, but two wrongs don't make a right. |
I just happen to love computer chess 
_________________
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex Newman
Joined: 03 Mar 2012
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:56 pm Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
| It's like Spanish soap opera, isn't it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Kaufman
Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 1228
Location: Maryland USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:03 pm Post subject: Re: Strelka 5.5 vs Houdini & Critter |
|
|
| LudiBuda wrote: |
Ok, so to be perfectly correct, Strelka 5.5 is the strongest engine under my test conditions. Good enough?
I don't see why Strelka has to be the Houdini clone. Houdini 1.5 is just slightly modified Robbolito. I disaassembled its search and found only minor changes compared to the Robbolito 0.085
If Strelka author also started from the Robbolito base, he will end up with the engine very similar to Houdini. |
That's an interesting observation, but Strelka 5.5 seems to be much closer to Houdini 1.5 in strength than either are to Robbolito. Since you have disassembled Houdini search, can you comment on those differences you found that might account for the huge strength increase from Robbolito to Houdini 1.5? Critter author Richard Vida did so about a year ago, but the differences he cited were not enough to account for the large strength increase, in my opinion. Perhaps his list was incomplete, or else the gains came more from eval, I don't know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
