TalkChess.com

i amimpressed with this engine in engine matches but it is just another fast clone.As soon as you go into IA mode esp at corr time controls it fails miserably.i am not a Rybka fanboy,Vas has given me nothing and never said a word to me.i await an engine that delivers.if anyone wishes to challange me on this.i am open at anytime on 48/Hour per move.

NATIONAL12 wrote:i amimpressed with this engine in engine matches but it is just another fast clone.As soon as you go into IA mode esp at corr time controls it fails miserably.i am not a Rybka fanboy,Vas has given me nothing and never said a word to me.i await an engine that delivers.if anyone wishes to challange me on this.i am open at anytime on 48/Hour per move.

What is IA mode?

Albert Silver wrote:

NATIONAL12 wrote:i amimpressed with this engine in engine matches but it is just another fast clone.As soon as you go into IA mode esp at corr time controls it fails miserably.i am not a Rybka fanboy,Vas has given me nothing and never said a word to me.i await an engine that delivers.if anyone wishes to challange me on this.i am open at anytime on 48/Hour per move.

What is IA mode?

IA = Infinite Analysis.

Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."

Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.

Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?

'fails miserably'? how so? depth stalling? poor move choice? out of how many games, in what sort of positions & compared to what? was equal hardware and/or time used? it sounds look it be an issue with a)unqueal h/w (as i don't need to tell paul, houdini supports only 8 cores & he has more that at his disposal b)just a very tiny sample size, & an overlooker who is subsciously picking results that favor this theory.

is there any possible reason houdini would be more stubbon to switch at high depths? the example that i'd think suggests it doesnt have a bug in this sense was the recent kramnik-calrsen game where houdini gave a draw (static) eval for about 40+ pliles before finally switching g5 & showing a slight increase in eval over the next couple ply.

NATIONAL12 wrote:i am.As soon as you go into IA mode esp at corr time controls it fails miserably...

And how you tested this?

gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."

Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.

Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?

I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.

CThinker wrote:I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34578
That was the thread Lance?

CThinker wrote:

gaard wrote:Calling something that trumps its predecessor from which you believe it is a clone of, by ~100 Elo, "just another fast clone" is anything but polite. Better would be "Houdini is to be insulting another derivative."

Houdini 1.5 has been out, what, 72 hours? Yet, you have already determined that it "fails miserably" at correspondence time controls, for example, 48 hours/move? Better to wait till you reach a sample size of 1 first before you draw such far reaching conclusions.

Don't we have a separate forum for these _Engine Origins_ discussions?

I disassembled Houdini, posted the proof, and there are people who still refuse to believe that it is nothing but an Ippolit.

There are people who want their engine, even if it is a product of dishonesty.

Sounds like a good thread for... *drum roll* _Engine Origins_ *cymbal crash*

It is written somewhere that:

Discussion of the engines should be in whatever forum is
appropriate for the topic. If someone is looking at the code and
has a question/comment/observation about something, the programming
forum is the right place. If someone is looking at similarities or differences
with other programs (such as Rybka) then the EO forum is the right
place.

Mr Rybka Fan Boy Watson,

I think you need to open up your eyes, as it is quite clear you are living in a dream world.. You need to come back to reality, and stop writting bullshit like this.