I'm not talking about ''general performance''. I'm just stating that it is strange that the newer and the stronger version of the same engine (Houdini 3) performs worse than the weaker and the oldest version of the same engine (Houdini 1.5a) against a common opponent, Rybka 4.1 4cpu.Houdini wrote:In a rating list gauntlet inevitably some individual matches go well, other go poorly.MM wrote:I think we may need many games to have a clear result but i think that Rybka 4.1 is still, perhaps except Komodo, the best engine for ''understanding'' positions.
So i can understand that Houdini generally can have some trouble facing Rybka at long time control, especially with many cores.
What would surprise me is if Houdini 3 should show a worse result compared to Houdini 1.5a playing Rybka 4.1.
I agree that the strenght of an engine must be calculated on many individual matches but i wouldn't understand if the improvement of Houdini 3 caused (if) a drop in the performance against Rybka 4.1.
Best Regards
Against "Deep Rybka 4.1 x64 4CPU" Houdini 3 had a poor run and performed 50 Elo below its rating.
But against "Deep Rybka 4 Exp.61 x64 1CPU" Houdini 3 had a good run and performed 45 Elo above its rating.
It is not smart to attach a lot of importance to these individual results. There is a reason why 1000 games are played for a rating list, not 50.
Robert
Theoretically if there's a difference around 70 elo between 2 versions of the same engine (H3 and H1.5a) the strongest version should have a better performance against a common opponent.
Said that, Houdini 3 remains the unmatched leader of the chess engines as all charts show, at least at short and medium/long time control.
Best Regards