Houdini 3

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
geots
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:42 pm

Re: Houdini 3

Post by geots » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:18 pm

lkaufman wrote:
geots wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
MM wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Mike S. wrote:[quote="mclane & Stockfish.

Maybe my explanation is even more simple but true: Rybka, Ippo & Co are simply better. :mrgreen: The weaker engines just benefit from the bigger draw rates at big depths/long time controls.
This might be a factor for Houdini, but certainly Ivanhoe (Ippo), Rybka, and all other Ippo-related programs are not stronger than Komodo and not measurably stronger than SF except at bullet chess, so this cannot be the explanation here.

There seem to be two theories to explain the observed scaling behavior:
1. Komodo (and perhaps also SF) are more intelligent but slower, and that this tradeoff usually (but not always) favors the fast programs in blitz and the smart programs at long time controls.
2. For whatever reason, the search in Komodo (and perhaps SF) scales better than the search in the Rybka/Ippo family.

Both could be true. If the second is true, can anyone suggest WHY SF might scale better in search than Ivanhoe et al?
I don't think ''intelligence'' is the right word. There are two different approaches to the search in my view.

Ippo family engines have a search for which they find tactical moves in a very short time.
I think it is a question of search (and evaluation). Like humans. Some humans search mainly for tactical moves.
I'm not a programmer but i think it depends by the evaluation that an engine gives to each move that it analyses.
In this way it could happen that all the moves that don't give a ''break'' in the evaluation are discarded or analysed less time (and perhaps they are good positional moves).
If this would be true, it is logical that these engines find more often and more quickly tactical moves.

On the other hand Komodo plays mainly positionally.
Komodo often manouevres his pieces and pawns for many moves without playing any tactical move.

Probably it depends by the fact that Komodo gives a special evaluation on some moves that lead to some positional patterns.

I mean, probably during the search, Komodo seems to make the opposite of the engines of the ippo family.

Then Komodo analyzes more the ''positional moves'' (probably because it consider them better than other moves with its evaluation) and gives less time or discards some tactical moves.

In fact, sometimes Komodo overlooks some tactical moves, and it depends by the search or sometimes by the evaluation.

If all i wrote would be true, it is logical that in very fast time control, ippo family engines excel.

With more time to think, a positional engine like Komodo has 2 advantages:

1. What Komodo overlooks or evaluates bad in a few seconds can be seen well with more time available.

2.The weight of positional play of Komodo increases a lot and becomes more important than its (relative) weakness in tactics.

Generally speaking i think that the strenght of Komodo is that it plays nice positional and logical moves. It seems that it uses the search just to verify that everything is ok.

On the other hand the strenght of ippo family engines is the approach of the search (i think built mainly for tactical moves) and the evaluation that allows them to find sometimes tactical moves apparently hidden.

In long time control, especially in very long time control, tactics ability is almost useless because the opponent (if he has a good search and evaluation) has all the time to see it.

So the thing that has more importance is the positional/strategical sensibility.


Best Regards
I am coming to the conclusion that the relative weakness of both Komodo and Stockfish at bullet speeds vs. slower tests (which is obvious if you compare any bullet list with say the IPON list) is not mainly a question of slowness due to more or slower evaluation. I say this because I noticed that Rybka 4.1 shares the same behavior as Ivanhoe and all the other top programs (except Komodo and Stockfish) in that it is also relatively stronger at bullet speeds than at normal speeds. If we make the assumption that Rybka 4.1 is at least not substantially "dumber" than Rybka 3, I can say that the evaluation I did for Rybka 3 was also rather "smart" and "slow", rather like Komodo, yet Rybka 4.1 shares the behavior of Ippo and family. So I can only conclude that the behavior is due to some aspect of the Ippo and Rybka search that is not present in either Komodo or Stockfish. Since we have at least tried almost every search idea in Ippo (and rejected many of them), I can't guess what that aspect could be. If we can solve this mystery perhaps we can make Komodo as competitive with Houdini at bullet and blitz chess as it already appears to be at longer time controls.



Interesting that you mention the Ippos, Rybka, Houdini- and, I would have to imagine you include Critter. The reason I imagine you use Critter is because you have no choice, really. What amazes me about this pile of engines you have gathered- you don't include Strelka. You can make a great argument for leaving it out- but the argument becomes futile and silly when you leave all the others in. You want to have it both ways. Sorry. Strelka is not MP- but it uses 32bit and 64bit. You use Komodo with either- which noting its lack of strength in 32-bit would have to be 64. We shall both monitor a 50 game match with Komodo on 1cpu vs. Strelka 5.1. You pick the time limit of your choice. In a 50 game match you can start with white- and I will give you the gift of a win in game 1 with no moves. It won't amount to a dot in the universe. Any time control of your choice- I am sorry- Strelka 5.1 will go thru Komodo like Sherman thru Georgia. But that is not being cruel- no other engines can play with him either- outside of Houdini and Critter. And the last match, Critter got his butt kicked. Look, when I say any time limits of your choice- that is up to and thru 40/40. No slower- simply because it is a waste of my time. As it will change nothing, and at 63 time becomes a valuable commodity.


Best regards Larry- it's certainly nothing personal,

george


Please no bars and graphs and formuli that are supposed to show where one program intersects with another. There has already been too much talk and not enough "walk". Let's get the match on.
If you are talking about Komodo 4, you are probably right that Strelka 5.1 would be favored in a match at 40/40, since I understand it to be just a slightly weaker relative of Houdini 1.5. But although I have never tested Strelka, I would be willing to make a substantial wager that the current Komodo would win a hundred game match at that time control on an i7 or similar 64 bit SSE4 machine, if we can find a neutral trustworthy party to hold the stakes and run the match. I say this based on the assumption that Strelka 5.1 is at least marginally weaker than Houdini (1.5 or 2.0, I don't care); if this is not true please enlighten me. I realize that this offer is a bit unfair to you, as you don't have any Komodo newer than 4.0.


Correct, but I have one thing on my side. I have enough Strelka matches ag. other engines and different versions of engines, most repeated a minimum of twice, at different time limits- to print out the crosstable, slide it into a sheet protector, and overfill quite a large binder. Included in there are 3 matches ag. Komodo 4- at 3 different time limits. Smart money would look at how much of an increase in strength you would need to reach Strelka- it would have to be something that has never remotely come close to happening between 2 versions of any engine in the history of computer chess.

I remember a particular "Dating Game" episode where one guy told the girl about a Broadway play, late night candlelight dinner with wine and music.......... She asked him but what if they didn't have any of that. He said, "Sweetheart, we could make it in a cornfield at midnight if we had to."

Which you reminded me of. Strelka is ready to play you on a department store laptop sitting under a shade tree.. Why any time someone mentions a match- do you have to up the ante on speed, equipment, cores- whatever is there for you to grab a hold of. I am only about the 100th person who has noticed this trait.


Best regards,

george

User avatar
geots
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:42 pm

Re: Houdini 3

Post by geots » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:32 am

You and Don already know, so this is for anyone who might misread my ideas. Komodo is in the bunch of engines clustered somewhere within reach of the top. Will it get to the top, irrespective of special equipment? How would I know. Just the fact that an engine can best Fritz, Shredder, Hiarcs and Junior makes it a good buy. A chess engine is what it is, and I certainly wish you and Don all the best. I would have no reason not to.

I am probably the one who was a bit unfair, as I failed to mention that Strelka does the same to Rybka and Stockfish. And now it is walking thru the Ivanhoes. It did lose a 200 game match to Critter by a couple of games, but in the last 50 game session it clobbered the hell out of Critter like Houdini has never done. But it is the Ivanhoes it is walking thru that is the stunner to me. Trust me- it is not supposed to be able to do that.


Best regards,

george

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Houdini 3

Post by Robert Flesher » Wed Mar 07, 2012 12:53 am

lkaufman wrote:
geots wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
MM wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Mike S. wrote:[quote="mclane & Stockfish.

Maybe my explanation is even more simple but true: Rybka, Ippo & Co are simply better. :mrgreen: The weaker engines just benefit from the bigger draw rates at big depths/long time controls.
This might be a factor for Houdini, but certainly Ivanhoe (Ippo), Rybka, and all other Ippo-related programs are not stronger than Komodo and not measurably stronger than SF except at bullet chess, so this cannot be the explanation here.

There seem to be two theories to explain the observed scaling behavior:
1. Komodo (and perhaps also SF) are more intelligent but slower, and that this tradeoff usually (but not always) favors the fast programs in blitz and the smart programs at long time controls.
2. For whatever reason, the search in Komodo (and perhaps SF) scales better than the search in the Rybka/Ippo family.

Both could be true. If the second is true, can anyone suggest WHY SF might scale better in search than Ivanhoe et al?
I don't think ''intelligence'' is the right word. There are two different approaches to the search in my view.

Ippo family engines have a search for which they find tactical moves in a very short time.
I think it is a question of search (and evaluation). Like humans. Some humans search mainly for tactical moves.
I'm not a programmer but i think it depends by the evaluation that an engine gives to each move that it analyses.
In this way it could happen that all the moves that don't give a ''break'' in the evaluation are discarded or analysed less time (and perhaps they are good positional moves).
If this would be true, it is logical that these engines find more often and more quickly tactical moves.

On the other hand Komodo plays mainly positionally.
Komodo often manouevres his pieces and pawns for many moves without playing any tactical move.

Probably it depends by the fact that Komodo gives a special evaluation on some moves that lead to some positional patterns.

I mean, probably during the search, Komodo seems to make the opposite of the engines of the ippo family.

Then Komodo analyzes more the ''positional moves'' (probably because it consider them better than other moves with its evaluation) and gives less time or discards some tactical moves.

In fact, sometimes Komodo overlooks some tactical moves, and it depends by the search or sometimes by the evaluation.

If all i wrote would be true, it is logical that in very fast time control, ippo family engines excel.

With more time to think, a positional engine like Komodo has 2 advantages:

1. What Komodo overlooks or evaluates bad in a few seconds can be seen well with more time available.

2.The weight of positional play of Komodo increases a lot and becomes more important than its (relative) weakness in tactics.

Generally speaking i think that the strenght of Komodo is that it plays nice positional and logical moves. It seems that it uses the search just to verify that everything is ok.

On the other hand the strenght of ippo family engines is the approach of the search (i think built mainly for tactical moves) and the evaluation that allows them to find sometimes tactical moves apparently hidden.

In long time control, especially in very long time control, tactics ability is almost useless because the opponent (if he has a good search and evaluation) has all the time to see it.

So the thing that has more importance is the positional/strategical sensibility.


Best Regards
I am coming to the conclusion that the relative weakness of both Komodo and Stockfish at bullet speeds vs. slower tests (which is obvious if you compare any bullet list with say the IPON list) is not mainly a question of slowness due to more or slower evaluation. I say this because I noticed that Rybka 4.1 shares the same behavior as Ivanhoe and all the other top programs (except Komodo and Stockfish) in that it is also relatively stronger at bullet speeds than at normal speeds. If we make the assumption that Rybka 4.1 is at least not substantially "dumber" than Rybka 3, I can say that the evaluation I did for Rybka 3 was also rather "smart" and "slow", rather like Komodo, yet Rybka 4.1 shares the behavior of Ippo and family. So I can only conclude that the behavior is due to some aspect of the Ippo and Rybka search that is not present in either Komodo or Stockfish. Since we have at least tried almost every search idea in Ippo (and rejected many of them), I can't guess what that aspect could be. If we can solve this mystery perhaps we can make Komodo as competitive with Houdini at bullet and blitz chess as it already appears to be at longer time controls.



Interesting that you mention the Ippos, Rybka, Houdini- and, I would have to imagine you include Critter. The reason I imagine you use Critter is because you have no choice, really. What amazes me about this pile of engines you have gathered- you don't include Strelka. You can make a great argument for leaving it out- but the argument becomes futile and silly when you leave all the others in. You want to have it both ways. Sorry. Strelka is not MP- but it uses 32bit and 64bit. You use Komodo with either- which noting its lack of strength in 32-bit would have to be 64. We shall both monitor a 50 game match with Komodo on 1cpu vs. Strelka 5.1. You pick the time limit of your choice. In a 50 game match you can start with white- and I will give you the gift of a win in game 1 with no moves. It won't amount to a dot in the universe. Any time control of your choice- I am sorry- Strelka 5.1 will go thru Komodo like Sherman thru Georgia. But that is not being cruel- no other engines can play with him either- outside of Houdini and Critter. And the last match, Critter got his butt kicked. Look, when I say any time limits of your choice- that is up to and thru 40/40. No slower- simply because it is a waste of my time. As it will change nothing, and at 63 time becomes a valuable commodity.


Best regards Larry- it's certainly nothing personal,

george


Please no bars and graphs and formuli that are supposed to show where one program intersects with another. There has already been too much talk and not enough "walk". Let's get the match on.
If you are talking about Komodo 4, you are probably right that Strelka 5.1 would be favored in a match at 40/40, since I understand it to be just a slightly weaker relative of Houdini 1.5. But although I have never tested Strelka, I would be willing to make a substantial wager that the current Komodo would win a hundred game match at that time control on an i7 or similar 64 bit SSE4 machine, if we can find a neutral trustworthy party to hold the stakes and run the match. I say this based on the assumption that Strelka 5.1 is at least marginally weaker than Houdini (1.5 or 2.0, I don't care); if this is not true please enlighten me. I realize that this offer is a bit unfair to you, as you don't have any Komodo newer than 4.0.

Heya Larry, I am not so sure. At longer time controls, on faster hardware I have Komodo second only to Houdini. However, they are so close I cannot really say which engine is stronger. Komodo smoked Stelka in a 100 game match with 15min each on the clock. I still think people with weaker hardware half no clue how much stronger the 64 bit SSE version of Komodo is. I'd very much like to see this match between the new version of Komodo and Stelka. I know where I would place by bets.

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Houdini 3

Post by Robert Flesher » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:18 am

geots wrote:You and Don already know, so this is for anyone who might misread my ideas. Komodo is in the bunch of engines clustered somewhere within reach of the top. Will it get to the top, irrespective of special equipment? How would I know. Just the fact that an engine can best Fritz, Shredder, Hiarcs and Junior makes it a good buy. A chess engine is what it is, and I certainly wish you and Don all the best. I would have no reason not to.

I am probably the one who was a bit unfair, as I failed to mention that Strelka does the same to Rybka and Stockfish. And now it is walking thru the Ivanhoes. It did lose a 200 game match to Critter by a couple of games, but in the last 50 game session it clobbered the hell out of Critter like Houdini has never done. But it is the Ivanhoes it is walking thru that is the stunner to me. Trust me- it is not supposed to be able to do that.


Best regards,

george
Heya George, as I said before I think you will find the 64 bit SSE Komodo is alot stronger. With that being said, I would really like to see the match you challenged to the Komodo team become a reality. I do not really care you wins, I just want to see the chess. Perhaps you have found conditions/paramters/books that make Stelka play at another level. If that is true , I want to use all those beautiful novelties for my own play. Please make it happen :lol:

lkaufman
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Contact:

Re: Houdini 3

Post by lkaufman » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:59 am

geots wrote: Correct, but I have one thing on my side. I have enough Strelka matches ag. other engines and different versions of engines, most repeated a minimum of twice, at different time limits- to print out the crosstable, slide it into a sheet protector, and overfill quite a large binder. Included in there are 3 matches ag. Komodo 4- at 3 different time limits.

Best regards,

george

I haven't followed all of your match results, would you mind reporting again here the results of those three matches and the time limits, and most importantly whether they were 32 bit or 64 bit matches? If they were 32 bit matches, the results would be almost meaningless as I am the first to admit that Komodo 32 bit is embarrassingly slow. If Strelka has defeated Komodo 4 in a long match at a non-blitz time control on 64 bits by a decisive margin, I might have to admit that I was premature to predict victory, but I don't think that was the case, was it?

If we have any volunteers to run a match, I'll propose a time limit of 30 minutes plus 30" increment. I think increment games are much more interesting than 40/x games, because the occasional 200 move draw is an awful waste of time and incredibly boring with the repeating time control. I'm a big supporter of CEGT and CCRL, but I wish they would get with the times and play increment games. Even humans never play time limits like 40/40' or 40'/20', it's always fixed time plus increment (or delay). Even 40/2 hours without a sudden death finish is almost extinct in human play.

Finally I want to dispel the notion that I am asking for special equipment or excessive time. Almost any computer made in the last two years should be 64 bit and sse4-compatible, that's all I require. And the time limit I propose is about three times faster than the typical human 40/2 hour control.

Best,
Larry

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Houdini 3

Post by Robert Flesher » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:09 am

lkaufman wrote:
geots wrote: Correct, but I have one thing on my side. I have enough Strelka matches ag. other engines and different versions of engines, most repeated a minimum of twice, at different time limits- to print out the crosstable, slide it into a sheet protector, and overfill quite a large binder. Included in there are 3 matches ag. Komodo 4- at 3 different time limits.

Best regards,

george

I haven't followed all of your match results, would you mind reporting again here the results of those three matches and the time limits, and most importantly whether they were 32 bit or 64 bit matches? If they were 32 bit matches, the results would be almost meaningless as I am the first to admit that Komodo 32 bit is embarrassingly slow. If Strelka has defeated Komodo 4 in a long match at a non-blitz time control on 64 bits by a decisive margin, I might have to admit that I was premature to predict victory, but I don't think that was the case, was it?

If we have any volunteers to run a match, I'll propose a time limit of 30 minutes plus 30" increment. I think increment games are much more interesting than 40/x games, because the occasional 200 move draw is an awful waste of time and incredibly boring with the repeating time control. I'm a big supporter of CEGT and CCRL, but I wish they would get with the times and play increment games. Even humans never play time limits like 40/40' or 40'/20', it's always fixed time plus increment (or delay). Even 40/2 hours without a sudden death finish is almost extinct in human play.

Finally I want to dispel the notion that I am asking for special equipment or excessive time. Almost any computer made in the last two years should be 64 bit and sse4-compatible, that's all I require. And the time limit I propose is about three times faster than the typical human 40/2 hour control.

Best,
Larry
you released the new Komodo MP so I can pay my extra 20 bucks and I will run your test. Until then, we wait. Or better yet, let me pay the 20.00 dollars now, give me the new updated SP version you speak of, and the battle will begin!

User avatar
geots
Posts: 4790
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:42 pm

Re: Houdini 3

Post by geots » Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:30 am

Robert Flesher wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
geots wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
MM wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Mike S. wrote:[quote="mclane & Stockfish.

Maybe my explanation is even more simple but true: Rybka, Ippo & Co are simply better. :mrgreen: The weaker engines just benefit from the bigger draw rates at big depths/long time controls.
This might be a factor for Houdini, but certainly Ivanhoe (Ippo), Rybka, and all other Ippo-related programs are not stronger than Komodo and not measurably stronger than SF except at bullet chess, so this cannot be the explanation here.

There seem to be two theories to explain the observed scaling behavior:
1. Komodo (and perhaps also SF) are more intelligent but slower, and that this tradeoff usually (but not always) favors the fast programs in blitz and the smart programs at long time controls.
2. For whatever reason, the search in Komodo (and perhaps SF) scales better than the search in the Rybka/Ippo family.

Both could be true. If the second is true, can anyone suggest WHY SF might scale better in search than Ivanhoe et al?
I don't think ''intelligence'' is the right word. There are two different approaches to the search in my view.

Ippo family engines have a search for which they find tactical moves in a very short time.
I think it is a question of search (and evaluation). Like humans. Some humans search mainly for tactical moves.
I'm not a programmer but i think it depends by the evaluation that an engine gives to each move that it analyses.
In this way it could happen that all the moves that don't give a ''break'' in the evaluation are discarded or analysed less time (and perhaps they are good positional moves).
If this would be true, it is logical that these engines find more often and more quickly tactical moves.

On the other hand Komodo plays mainly positionally.
Komodo often manouevres his pieces and pawns for many moves without playing any tactical move.

Probably it depends by the fact that Komodo gives a special evaluation on some moves that lead to some positional patterns.

I mean, probably during the search, Komodo seems to make the opposite of the engines of the ippo family.

Then Komodo analyzes more the ''positional moves'' (probably because it consider them better than other moves with its evaluation) and gives less time or discards some tactical moves.

In fact, sometimes Komodo overlooks some tactical moves, and it depends by the search or sometimes by the evaluation.

If all i wrote would be true, it is logical that in very fast time control, ippo family engines excel.

With more time to think, a positional engine like Komodo has 2 advantages:

1. What Komodo overlooks or evaluates bad in a few seconds can be seen well with more time available.

2.The weight of positional play of Komodo increases a lot and becomes more important than its (relative) weakness in tactics.

Generally speaking i think that the strenght of Komodo is that it plays nice positional and logical moves. It seems that it uses the search just to verify that everything is ok.

On the other hand the strenght of ippo family engines is the approach of the search (i think built mainly for tactical moves) and the evaluation that allows them to find sometimes tactical moves apparently hidden.

In long time control, especially in very long time control, tactics ability is almost useless because the opponent (if he has a good search and evaluation) has all the time to see it.

So the thing that has more importance is the positional/strategical sensibility.


Best Regards
I am coming to the conclusion that the relative weakness of both Komodo and Stockfish at bullet speeds vs. slower tests (which is obvious if you compare any bullet list with say the IPON list) is not mainly a question of slowness due to more or slower evaluation. I say this because I noticed that Rybka 4.1 shares the same behavior as Ivanhoe and all the other top programs (except Komodo and Stockfish) in that it is also relatively stronger at bullet speeds than at normal speeds. If we make the assumption that Rybka 4.1 is at least not substantially "dumber" than Rybka 3, I can say that the evaluation I did for Rybka 3 was also rather "smart" and "slow", rather like Komodo, yet Rybka 4.1 shares the behavior of Ippo and family. So I can only conclude that the behavior is due to some aspect of the Ippo and Rybka search that is not present in either Komodo or Stockfish. Since we have at least tried almost every search idea in Ippo (and rejected many of them), I can't guess what that aspect could be. If we can solve this mystery perhaps we can make Komodo as competitive with Houdini at bullet and blitz chess as it already appears to be at longer time controls.



Interesting that you mention the Ippos, Rybka, Houdini- and, I would have to imagine you include Critter. The reason I imagine you use Critter is because you have no choice, really. What amazes me about this pile of engines you have gathered- you don't include Strelka. You can make a great argument for leaving it out- but the argument becomes futile and silly when you leave all the others in. You want to have it both ways. Sorry. Strelka is not MP- but it uses 32bit and 64bit. You use Komodo with either- which noting its lack of strength in 32-bit would have to be 64. We shall both monitor a 50 game match with Komodo on 1cpu vs. Strelka 5.1. You pick the time limit of your choice. In a 50 game match you can start with white- and I will give you the gift of a win in game 1 with no moves. It won't amount to a dot in the universe. Any time control of your choice- I am sorry- Strelka 5.1 will go thru Komodo like Sherman thru Georgia. But that is not being cruel- no other engines can play with him either- outside of Houdini and Critter. And the last match, Critter got his butt kicked. Look, when I say any time limits of your choice- that is up to and thru 40/40. No slower- simply because it is a waste of my time. As it will change nothing, and at 63 time becomes a valuable commodity.


Best regards Larry- it's certainly nothing personal,

george


Please no bars and graphs and formuli that are supposed to show where one program intersects with another. There has already been too much talk and not enough "walk". Let's get the match on.
If you are talking about Komodo 4, you are probably right that Strelka 5.1 would be favored in a match at 40/40, since I understand it to be just a slightly weaker relative of Houdini 1.5. But although I have never tested Strelka, I would be willing to make a substantial wager that the current Komodo would win a hundred game match at that time control on an i7 or similar 64 bit SSE4 machine, if we can find a neutral trustworthy party to hold the stakes and run the match. I say this based on the assumption that Strelka 5.1 is at least marginally weaker than Houdini (1.5 or 2.0, I don't care); if this is not true please enlighten me. I realize that this offer is a bit unfair to you, as you don't have any Komodo newer than 4.0.

Heya Larry, I am not so sure. At longer time controls, on faster hardware I have Komodo second only to Houdini. However, they are so close I cannot really say which engine is stronger. Komodo smoked Stelka in a 100 game match with 15min each on the clock. I still think people with weaker hardware half no clue how much stronger the 64 bit SSE version of Komodo is. I'd very much like to see this match between the new version of Komodo and Stelka. I know where I would place by bets.


I have no idea who the people with the weaker hardware are- because if you are referring to me- back up. I have a 64bit quad- brand new- that will run any popct, SSE, HEM anything, and just as fast as yours. You may get one result- I get another. But I am outta here, as I see where this is going. And I don't have time for it, especially if you are the same Robert Flesher who was "supposed" to be helping me beta test Vitruvius for Roberto.


Nothing personal- bye

george

Robert Flesher
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:06 am

Re: Houdini 3

Post by Robert Flesher » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:45 pm

geots wrote:
Robert Flesher wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
geots wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
MM wrote:
lkaufman wrote:
Mike S. wrote:[quote="mclane & Stockfish.

Maybe my explanation is even more simple but true: Rybka, Ippo & Co are simply better. :mrgreen: The weaker engines just benefit from the bigger draw rates at big depths/long time controls.
This might be a factor for Houdini, but certainly Ivanhoe (Ippo), Rybka, and all other Ippo-related programs are not stronger than Komodo and not measurably stronger than SF except at bullet chess, so this cannot be the explanation here.

There seem to be two theories to explain the observed scaling behavior:
1. Komodo (and perhaps also SF) are more intelligent but slower, and that this tradeoff usually (but not always) favors the fast programs in blitz and the smart programs at long time controls.
2. For whatever reason, the search in Komodo (and perhaps SF) scales better than the search in the Rybka/Ippo family.

Both could be true. If the second is true, can anyone suggest WHY SF might scale better in search than Ivanhoe et al?
I don't think ''intelligence'' is the right word. There are two different approaches to the search in my view.

Ippo family engines have a search for which they find tactical moves in a very short time.
I think it is a question of search (and evaluation). Like humans. Some humans search mainly for tactical moves.
I'm not a programmer but i think it depends by the evaluation that an engine gives to each move that it analyses.
In this way it could happen that all the moves that don't give a ''break'' in the evaluation are discarded or analysed less time (and perhaps they are good positional moves).
If this would be true, it is logical that these engines find more often and more quickly tactical moves.

On the other hand Komodo plays mainly positionally.
Komodo often manouevres his pieces and pawns for many moves without playing any tactical move.

Probably it depends by the fact that Komodo gives a special evaluation on some moves that lead to some positional patterns.

I mean, probably during the search, Komodo seems to make the opposite of the engines of the ippo family.

Then Komodo analyzes more the ''positional moves'' (probably because it consider them better than other moves with its evaluation) and gives less time or discards some tactical moves.

In fact, sometimes Komodo overlooks some tactical moves, and it depends by the search or sometimes by the evaluation.

If all i wrote would be true, it is logical that in very fast time control, ippo family engines excel.

With more time to think, a positional engine like Komodo has 2 advantages:

1. What Komodo overlooks or evaluates bad in a few seconds can be seen well with more time available.

2.The weight of positional play of Komodo increases a lot and becomes more important than its (relative) weakness in tactics.

Generally speaking i think that the strenght of Komodo is that it plays nice positional and logical moves. It seems that it uses the search just to verify that everything is ok.

On the other hand the strenght of ippo family engines is the approach of the search (i think built mainly for tactical moves) and the evaluation that allows them to find sometimes tactical moves apparently hidden.

In long time control, especially in very long time control, tactics ability is almost useless because the opponent (if he has a good search and evaluation) has all the time to see it.

So the thing that has more importance is the positional/strategical sensibility.


Best Regards
I am coming to the conclusion that the relative weakness of both Komodo and Stockfish at bullet speeds vs. slower tests (which is obvious if you compare any bullet list with say the IPON list) is not mainly a question of slowness due to more or slower evaluation. I say this because I noticed that Rybka 4.1 shares the same behavior as Ivanhoe and all the other top programs (except Komodo and Stockfish) in that it is also relatively stronger at bullet speeds than at normal speeds. If we make the assumption that Rybka 4.1 is at least not substantially "dumber" than Rybka 3, I can say that the evaluation I did for Rybka 3 was also rather "smart" and "slow", rather like Komodo, yet Rybka 4.1 shares the behavior of Ippo and family. So I can only conclude that the behavior is due to some aspect of the Ippo and Rybka search that is not present in either Komodo or Stockfish. Since we have at least tried almost every search idea in Ippo (and rejected many of them), I can't guess what that aspect could be. If we can solve this mystery perhaps we can make Komodo as competitive with Houdini at bullet and blitz chess as it already appears to be at longer time controls.



Interesting that you mention the Ippos, Rybka, Houdini- and, I would have to imagine you include Critter. The reason I imagine you use Critter is because you have no choice, really. What amazes me about this pile of engines you have gathered- you don't include Strelka. You can make a great argument for leaving it out- but the argument becomes futile and silly when you leave all the others in. You want to have it both ways. Sorry. Strelka is not MP- but it uses 32bit and 64bit. You use Komodo with either- which noting its lack of strength in 32-bit would have to be 64. We shall both monitor a 50 game match with Komodo on 1cpu vs. Strelka 5.1. You pick the time limit of your choice. In a 50 game match you can start with white- and I will give you the gift of a win in game 1 with no moves. It won't amount to a dot in the universe. Any time control of your choice- I am sorry- Strelka 5.1 will go thru Komodo like Sherman thru Georgia. But that is not being cruel- no other engines can play with him either- outside of Houdini and Critter. And the last match, Critter got his butt kicked. Look, when I say any time limits of your choice- that is up to and thru 40/40. No slower- simply because it is a waste of my time. As it will change nothing, and at 63 time becomes a valuable commodity.


Best regards Larry- it's certainly nothing personal,

george


Please no bars and graphs and formuli that are supposed to show where one program intersects with another. There has already been too much talk and not enough "walk". Let's get the match on.
If you are talking about Komodo 4, you are probably right that Strelka 5.1 would be favored in a match at 40/40, since I understand it to be just a slightly weaker relative of Houdini 1.5. But although I have never tested Strelka, I would be willing to make a substantial wager that the current Komodo would win a hundred game match at that time control on an i7 or similar 64 bit SSE4 machine, if we can find a neutral trustworthy party to hold the stakes and run the match. I say this based on the assumption that Strelka 5.1 is at least marginally weaker than Houdini (1.5 or 2.0, I don't care); if this is not true please enlighten me. I realize that this offer is a bit unfair to you, as you don't have any Komodo newer than 4.0.

Heya Larry, I am not so sure. At longer time controls, on faster hardware I have Komodo second only to Houdini. However, they are so close I cannot really say which engine is stronger. Komodo smoked Stelka in a 100 game match with 15min each on the clock. I still think people with weaker hardware half no clue how much stronger the 64 bit SSE version of Komodo is. I'd very much like to see this match between the new version of Komodo and Stelka. I know where I would place by bets.


I have no idea who the people with the weaker hardware are- because if you are referring to me- back up. I have a 64bit quad- brand new- that will run any popct, SSE, HEM anything, and just as fast as yours. You may get one result- I get another. But I am outta here, as I see where this is going. And I don't have time for it, especially if you are the same Robert Flesher who was "supposed" to be helping me beta test Vitruvius for Roberto.


Nothing personal- bye

george
George, I was referring to many people with poor results with Komodo who only use 32 bit hardware and no one individual. I myself installed the 32 bit version and saw that it plays far weaker as it is much slower than the 64 bit/ SSE version. Maybe you should read the post I made directly to you, as it shows my intent to see your match offer to Komdo occur.

Although, I am puzzled why you would bring up my Beta testing of Vitruvius? How is this revevant to the above conversation? I was a beta tester of the first versions of Vitruvius (as where many others), and provided Roberto with many great games and suggestions. Infact I continue to do so. If you look on the Vitruvius website, many of the game that are auto playing on the website right now were played in my tests. I am not sure what you are getting at with "supposed" to be helping?

diep
Posts: 1786
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:54 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Houdini 3

Post by diep » Thu Mar 08, 2012 7:26 am

mclane wrote:
lkaufman wrote:Basically I would like to know if Komodo (and Stockfish) are weak at bullet chess because we are doing something wrong, or whether we are stronger at slower chess because Ippo/Ivanhoe is doing something wrong (or both). Comments anyone?
komodo and stockfish are intelligent evaluation programs.
ippo/ivanhoe or rybka etc. are stupid search programs.

the intelligent programs are weak at bullet, and better at slow chess.
Look i don't want to get into the discussion too much here, but obviously all the names you quote here are total beancounters. Rybka has 2 things more in evaluation than ippo. That's a peanuts difference.

It's of course search, compiler and implementation and way how things get timed in this case which as these (super)bullet time controls determines the difference in case engines have such similar evaluation functions.

User avatar
mclane
Posts: 18388
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:40 pm
Location: US of Europe, germany
Full name: Thorsten Czub
Contact:

Re: Houdini 3

Post by mclane » Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:32 am

diep wrote:
mclane wrote:
lkaufman wrote:Basically I would like to know if Komodo (and Stockfish) are weak at bullet chess because we are doing something wrong, or whether we are stronger at slower chess because Ippo/Ivanhoe is doing something wrong (or both). Comments anyone?
komodo and stockfish are intelligent evaluation programs.
ippo/ivanhoe or rybka etc. are stupid search programs.

the intelligent programs are weak at bullet, and better at slow chess.
Look i don't want to get into the discussion too much here, but obviously all the names you quote here are total beancounters. Rybka has 2 things more in evaluation than ippo. That's a peanuts difference.

It's of course search, compiler and implementation and way how things get timed in this case which as these (super)bullet time controls determines the difference in case engines have such similar evaluation functions.

are you talking with larry or with me vincent.

i see a major difference in evaluation-behaviour between stockfish /komodo in opposite to the rybka-clone-programs .

what do you mean with bean counter ?? that komodo / stockfish
are bean counters ? or do you talk about the rybka-clones ?
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....

Post Reply