Komodo 4 on long time control

[Milos]

i didnt speculate, why should i

Are you serious almost all of your threads are speculation. Look at the title of this thread Komodo 4 does not yet exist and yet you are writing about it.

The problem is not in speculation by itself. The problem is the level of speculation is similar as if my grandma speculated about the prospects of intergalactic travel...

[tomgdrums]

We have already closed much if not all the gap and we continue to make progress and we do it mostly with our own ideas and always with our own code, not someone else's. So what users will get with Komodo is a program that is substantially different that all the other Ippo's such as Houdini.

My favorite word in here is "mostly". Don likes to take the high road except when it suites him not to.

I still say you can't have it both ways Don.

If ivanhoe and friends are as horrible as you say, then you shouldn't be checking out their ides..nor should you be going through the Critter source code that Richard Vida so kindly gave you. (and I am not associating Critter with Ivanhoe...it is just another example of Don checking out other people's stuff..granted with permission on this one...)

If I buy a stolen stereo that I know is stolen only because it is cheaper then it would be at Wal-mart.....you get my drift.

And just to be clear...I am not saying Ivanhoe IS or ISN'T stolen code because no one has proved conclusively one way or the other.

Just a lot of blah blah blah from everyone.

[Albert Silver]

I think that Komodo, sooner or later, will overtake Houdini at long time control or tournament time control. I mean 90'+30s or more that is much more than 40/40. I have Houdini 2.0, i see how it plays, its strenght is the tactical ability and the agressive style. I think that a strategical/positional engine like Komodo is stronger more than the time control is longer.

Regards

It is always convenient to speculate about very long TC, say 1 day/move, as nobody will ever be able to verify any claim you make.
What is obvious is that at longer TC less errors will be made and more draws will be played. This means that very naturally, as the weaker engine makes less mistakes, the Elo gap narrows at longer TC. This is not related to any "scaling" of engines, a similar situation is observed in human chess (higher skill level = more draws).

I tend to agree in all honesty. I do think that there is a difference in hyperspeed games, and not, but believe this difference disappears quite quickly unless one of the engines has serious time management issues.

Vincent used to make claims that Diep would be the top program given enough time due to its sheer superiority in knowledge over others. Ultimately it did not work that way. The diminishing returns he expected to kick in with greater ply-depth, that his engine's knowledge would outweigh, consistently failed to kick in.

In other words, if an engine was killing Diep because it was outsearching it by X Plies, it continued to kill him due to those plies even with greater time spent.

I do not believe there is an engine that will be weaker than Houdini at 5 minute games, but stronger at 2 hour games, unless they are already neck-to-neck (+ or -10 Elo) from the start.

[Frank Quisinsky]

Vincent is one the biggest expert for nonsense.

Opening books can be 400 ELO ...
Ruffian is a clone from Crafty or Shredder ...
I have the best book ... and in Leiden never I see such a bad book Vincent have.

But is the day long ...

[mwyoung]

I think that Komodo, sooner or later, will overtake Houdini at long time control or tournament time control. I mean 90'+30s or more that is much more than 40/40. I have Houdini 2.0, i see how it plays, its strenght is the tactical ability and the agressive style. I think that a strategical/positional engine like Komodo is stronger more than the time control is longer.

Regards

It is always convenient to speculate about very long TC, say 1 day/move, as nobody will ever be able to verify any claim you make.
What is obvious is that at longer TC less errors will be made and more draws will be played. This means that very naturally, as the weaker engine makes less mistakes, the Elo gap narrows at longer TC. This is not related to any "scaling" of engines, a similar situation is observed in human chess (higher skill level = more draws).

I tend to agree in all honesty. I do think that there is a difference in hyperspeed games, and not, but believe this difference disappears quite quickly unless one of the engines has serious time management issues.

Vincent used to make claims that Diep would be the top program given enough time due to its sheer superiority in knowledge over others. Ultimately it did not work that way. The diminishing returns he expected to kick in with greater ply-depth, that his engine's knowledge would outweigh, consistently failed to kick in.

In other words, if an engine was killing Diep because it was outsearching it by X Plies, it continued to kill him due to those plies even with greater time spent.

I do not believe there is an engine that will be weaker than Houdini at 5 minute games, but stronger at 2 hour games, unless they are already neck-to-neck (+ or -10 Elo) from the start.

I also agree, but Don and Larry really need to be right on this one. Or I do not see them making their new mid December release date.

Houdini just knocks the snot out of Komodo at fast and medium time controls for sure. There is no nice way to put it.

I ran this test last night with Houdini 2 pro c Vs Komodo 3 64 sse on my i7 3.1Ghz. 1 CPU each, Ponder on.

5m/40+5m/40+5m/40 0

1 Houdini 2.0c Pro x64 +124 +16/=15/-4 67.14% 23.5/35
2 Komodo64 3 -124 +4/=15/-16 32.86% 11.5/35

[Albert Silver]

I think that Komodo, sooner or later, will overtake Houdini at long time control or tournament time control. I mean 90'+30s or more that is much more than 40/40. I have Houdini 2.0, i see how it plays, its strenght is the tactical ability and the agressive style. I think that a strategical/positional engine like Komodo is stronger more than the time control is longer.

Regards

It is always convenient to speculate about very long TC, say 1 day/move, as nobody will ever be able to verify any claim you make.
What is obvious is that at longer TC less errors will be made and more draws will be played. This means that very naturally, as the weaker engine makes less mistakes, the Elo gap narrows at longer TC. This is not related to any "scaling" of engines, a similar situation is observed in human chess (higher skill level = more draws).

I tend to agree in all honesty. I do think that there is a difference in hyperspeed games, and not, but believe this difference disappears quite quickly unless one of the engines has serious time management issues.

Vincent used to make claims that Diep would be the top program given enough time due to its sheer superiority in knowledge over others. Ultimately it did not work that way. The diminishing returns he expected to kick in with greater ply-depth, that his engine's knowledge would outweigh, consistently failed to kick in.

In other words, if an engine was killing Diep because it was outsearching it by X Plies, it continued to kill him due to those plies even with greater time spent.

I do not believe there is an engine that will be weaker than Houdini at 5 minute games, but stronger at 2 hour games, unless they are already neck-to-neck (+ or -10 Elo) from the start.

I also agree, but Don and Larry really need to be right on this one. Or I do not see them making their new mid December release date.

Houdini just knocks the snot out of Komodo at fast and medium time controls for sure. There is no nice way to put it.

I ran this test last night with Houdini 2 pro c Vs Komodo 3 64 sse on my i7 3.1Ghz. 1 CPU each, Ponder on.

5m/40+5m/40+5m/40 0

1 Houdini 2.0c Pro x64 +124 +16/=15/-4 67.14% 23.5/35
2 Komodo64 3 -124 +4/=15/-16 32.86% 11.5/35

No offense, but I don't regard 35 games as even the beginning of a test. In one gauntlet of 500 games against Houdini 2.0, a beta of Komodo was leading it after 200+ games, though after 500 it was down to 45%.

[mwyoung]

I think that Komodo, sooner or later, will overtake Houdini at long time control or tournament time control. I mean 90'+30s or more that is much more than 40/40. I have Houdini 2.0, i see how it plays, its strenght is the tactical ability and the agressive style. I think that a strategical/positional engine like Komodo is stronger more than the time control is longer.

Regards

It is always convenient to speculate about very long TC, say 1 day/move, as nobody will ever be able to verify any claim you make.
What is obvious is that at longer TC less errors will be made and more draws will be played. This means that very naturally, as the weaker engine makes less mistakes, the Elo gap narrows at longer TC. This is not related to any "scaling" of engines, a similar situation is observed in human chess (higher skill level = more draws).

I tend to agree in all honesty. I do think that there is a difference in hyperspeed games, and not, but believe this difference disappears quite quickly unless one of the engines has serious time management issues.

Vincent used to make claims that Diep would be the top program given enough time due to its sheer superiority in knowledge over others. Ultimately it did not work that way. The diminishing returns he expected to kick in with greater ply-depth, that his engine's knowledge would outweigh, consistently failed to kick in.

In other words, if an engine was killing Diep because it was outsearching it by X Plies, it continued to kill him due to those plies even with greater time spent.

I do not believe there is an engine that will be weaker than Houdini at 5 minute games, but stronger at 2 hour games, unless they are already neck-to-neck (+ or -10 Elo) from the start.

I also agree, but Don and Larry really need to be right on this one. Or I do not see them making their new mid December release date.

Houdini just knocks the snot out of Komodo at fast and medium time controls for sure. There is no nice way to put it.

I ran this test last night with Houdini 2 pro c Vs Komodo 3 64 sse on my i7 3.1Ghz. 1 CPU each, Ponder on.

5m/40+5m/40+5m/40 0

1 Houdini 2.0c Pro x64 +124 +16/=15/-4 67.14% 23.5/35
2 Komodo64 3 -124 +4/=15/-16 32.86% 11.5/35

No offense, but I don't regard 35 games as even the beginning of a test. In one gauntlet of 500 games against Houdini 2.0, a beta of Komodo was leading it after 200+ games, though after 500 it was down to 45%.

Thanks for the tip, I am new the this computer testing thingy.

Komodo and Houdini have been tested ad nauseam. 35 games is enough to make the point in the post, very smart people here at CCC. Not trying to get an exact elo, that you do need 100's of games.

This results show over a 90% confidence that Houdini is superior to Komodo and that is the point of the post. You don't need 100's of games to show this when the programs are not close in strength to each other, and test with a lopsided score. But I am sure you knew this...

[beram]

Hi there,

Perhaps this data out of Franks database is statistically more relevant.
I would take my hat off for Don Dailey when he can improve Komodo 4 with more than 60 ELO. I will do the same when he gains - more likely to me - an ELO gain of about 20-30 ELO.
The gain of Komodo 3 to Komodo 2 was 46 ELO and I doubt Don will top that because of the tendency of diminishing gains with each new release.

kind regards to both of you Don and Robert

Code: Select all

SCCT Auto232 Rating  2011
	
1	Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 1c	+84/=94/-46	58.48%	131.0/224
2	Komodo 3.0 x64 1c	+46/=94/-84	41.52%      93.0/224

[h1a8]

As I said before, and as you have acknowledged before, you hardly know anything about Houdini or Houdini's scaling. See your "we are not interested enough in Houdini to study this in any detail" above.

Meaning that we do not intend to waste our time running Houdini at long time controls just to find out how good or bad it scales beyond the time controls we already understand. We spend time testing Komodo, not Houdini.

I never said we were not interested, I said, "not interested enough." We are interested in data on any chess program, even the illegitimate ones, that are this close to Komodo in strength.

Of course you get annoyed in a big hurry whenever someone reminds the forum about the origins of Houdini - and that is one of the "stupid facts" that you want people to ignore.

Robert

Not to get in the middle of this but didn't Stockfish, Komodo, Shredder, Fritz, Houdini, Critter, etc. gained strength from the ideas of the ippolit/Ivanhoe/Strelka sources?

Also, if a commercial engine is clean/free of someone else's code then would the origin of the engine (earlier non commercial versions) be irrelevant in ANY sense?

Stop presenting any of your stupid facts about Houdini 2 or Houdini 1.5, I don't make any stupid comments about Komodo either.

[Sarciness]

Note that the same long TC myths were being spread about Rybka 4, until the TCEC tournament demonstrated that even at very long TC (and on powerful 6-core hardware) Houdini was clearly superior, with an Elo difference that was not very different from the value found for much faster games.

Cheers,
Robert

Man, I miss TCEC. I wish someone had the hardware/time/inclination to do something similar!