New Houdini
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 1610
- Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:28 pm
- Location: USA
Re: New Houdini
Go Houdini
"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." (Dune - 1984)
Lonnie
Lonnie
-
- Posts: 10300
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: New Houdini
I think that we do not have enough games to know.APassionForCriminalJustic wrote:Houdini plays better chess?! Lmao. Holy crap man, you are something else. All of you so-called "experts" of computer chess think that the final will be close - or "interesting" (whatever that means)? Haha. That version of Houdini in Rapids right now lost two games versus Stockfish in stage three. They only played like six games or something to that effect in that stage. Rapids means nothing; head to head match ups are what matter.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:No, simply Houdini plays better chess, a bit better than SF and Komodo, but nothing earth-shaking.SzG wrote:I do not follow TCEC, can it not be that Houdini's opponents resign earlier?Laskos wrote:Your impressions seem to be confirmed as of now. Not only Houdini leads and has most wins, its wins are on average faster (less moves):Steve Maughan wrote:I've been watching some of Houdini's TCEC games. They are impressive. The engine seems to have a punchy agressive style too. I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't close to parity with Stockfish.
Steve
Code: Select all
SF Hou Ko 25 30 26 <-- number of wins Length 21-30 1 0 2 31-40 5 7 1 41-50 8 9 10 51-60 2 9 5 61-70 6 2 3 71-80 2 2 1 81-100 1 1 4 ========================= Won 52 50.5 55.4 Game Length
I bet after version 5 release H will top most rating lists 20-30 elo above SF 8 (which should be released about the same time) with contempt set on, about fully equal with no contempt.
I do not know about TCEC final though, everything will depend on the openings used, with shorter openings and more closed ones I would favour slightly Houdini, If the 8-move GM suite is used, which would be a major mistake to me, as will only bring more draws because of exhausted positions and less interesting play, especially if there are a lot of Sicilians and complex open positions, SF will undoubtedly be on top.
In any case we are heading into a very interesting final.
The fact that stockfish won 2 games in stage 3 does not prove that stockfish is better.
-
- Posts: 1203
- Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 2:49 pm
Re: New Houdini
This would be fun? Get a life...JJJ wrote:It will be so fun to see Houdini win and Stockfish not while it is at his peak. The bonus of course would be to see the hate of Adam fade aways
As long as the Stockfish developers act like they do these days no one will pass Stockfish. Maybe one can get close with "inspirations" of the Stockfish code, maybe one can find an idea for an improvement and pass, but not for long. So better find some other sources of fun
-
- Posts: 12541
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: New Houdini
He chats about it at TCEC.
Not much here.
Not much here.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:49 pm
Re: New Houdini
Leonid Yarosh made the first orthodox Babson. But meanwhile Peter Hoffman is the king of the Babson task - at least IMO. He made several cyclical Babsons (the normal Babson is Q-Q, R-R, B-B, N-N promotions).
Here is a paper by Peter Hoffman on the history of this fantastic task:
http://www.berlinthema.de/Babson_docu.pdf
Here is a paper by Peter Hoffman on the history of this fantastic task:
http://www.berlinthema.de/Babson_docu.pdf
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: New Houdini
After 42/62 games each top engine in TCEC Rapid, some hints about new Houdini:
Median won game:
Houdini: 49 moves
Stockfish: 49 moves
Komodo: 52 moves
Top 20% fast win (moves):
Houdini: 39 moves
Stockfish: 38 moves
Komodo: 42 moves
Number of wins which were adjudicated before reaching more than 1 pawn material advantage (mostly positional advantage):
Houdini: 13/34 (38%)
Stockfish: 7/30 (23%)
Komodo: 12/30 (40%)
Median won game:
Houdini: 49 moves
Stockfish: 49 moves
Komodo: 52 moves
Top 20% fast win (moves):
Houdini: 39 moves
Stockfish: 38 moves
Komodo: 42 moves
Number of wins which were adjudicated before reaching more than 1 pawn material advantage (mostly positional advantage):
Houdini: 13/34 (38%)
Stockfish: 7/30 (23%)
Komodo: 12/30 (40%)
-
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:13 am
re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini
A disappointing adjudication method is in use by TCEC, where the spectators don't get to see many of the wins played out properly - especially for a tournament that prides itself as being on display primarily "for entertainment" purposes.Laskos wrote:
Number of wins which were adjudicated before reaching more than 1 pawn material advantage (mostly positional advantage):
Houdini: 13/34 (38%)
Stockfish: 7/30 (23%)
Komodo: 12/30 (40%)
CL
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini
Why it says then: 650cps from both engines for 4 consecutive moves?carldaman wrote:A disappointing adjudication method is in use by TCEC, where the spectators don't get to see many of the wins played out properly - especially for a tournament that prides itself as being on display primarily "for entertainment" purposes.Laskos wrote:
Number of wins which were adjudicated before reaching more than 1 pawn material advantage (mostly positional advantage):
Houdini: 13/34 (38%)
Stockfish: 7/30 (23%)
Komodo: 12/30 (40%)
CL
650cps is quite a big advantage, if both opponents see it, system should be fair, but I fully agree about spectators: unless one uses an engine or follows the online PV, and one is not a super GM, in at least 30% of such won games, at least middlegame ones, one needs a bit of a time to fully understand why it is a win.
If an engine has seen it is 650cps in, say, 2 min on 20 cores, then a human should be able to also see that in 20x2=40 min.
I am more concerned about the final book, I do not find info on it, apart from that it will be some kind of mixture. Anyone being on the inside?
-
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:33 am
- Location: Regensburg, Germany
- Full name: Guenther Simon
Re: re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini
It means 1 pawn material advantage on the board not in the shown engine score.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Why it says then: 650cps from both engines for 4 consecutive moves?carldaman wrote:A disappointing adjudication method is in use by TCEC, where the spectators don't get to see many of the wins played out properly - especially for a tournament that prides itself as being on display primarily "for entertainment" purposes.Laskos wrote:
Number of wins which were adjudicated before reaching more than 1 pawn material advantage (mostly positional advantage):
Houdini: 13/34 (38%)
Stockfish: 7/30 (23%)
Komodo: 12/30 (40%)
CL
-
- Posts: 6052
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:41 pm
Re: re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini
How do you measure 1 point material advantage?Guenther wrote:It means 1 pawn material advantage on the board not in the shown engine score.Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:Why it says then: 650cps from both engines for 4 consecutive moves?carldaman wrote:A disappointing adjudication method is in use by TCEC, where the spectators don't get to see many of the wins played out properly - especially for a tournament that prides itself as being on display primarily "for entertainment" purposes.Laskos wrote:
Number of wins which were adjudicated before reaching more than 1 pawn material advantage (mostly positional advantage):
Houdini: 13/34 (38%)
Stockfish: 7/30 (23%)
Komodo: 12/30 (40%)
CL
I might have 5 points material disadvantage and 11.50 points positional advantage, and still win.