New Houdini

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

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
reflectionofpower
Posts: 1461
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: USA

Re: New Houdini

Post by reflectionofpower » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:37 pm

Go Houdini :wink:
"Without change, something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken." (Dune - 1984)

Lonnie

Uri Blass
Posts: 8790
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: New Houdini

Post by Uri Blass » Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:37 pm

APassionForCriminalJustic wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
SzG wrote:
Laskos wrote:
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
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):

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 do not follow TCEC, can it not be that Houdini's opponents resign earlier?
No, simply Houdini plays better chess, a bit better than SF and Komodo, but nothing earth-shaking.

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.
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.
I think that we do not have enough games to know.
The fact that stockfish won 2 games in stage 3 does not prove that stockfish is better.

Alexander Schmidt
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 12:49 pm

Re: New Houdini

Post by Alexander Schmidt » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:02 pm

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 :)
This would be fun? Get a life... :)

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 :)

Dann Corbit
Posts: 11518
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: New Houdini

Post by Dann Corbit » Fri Oct 07, 2016 4:26 pm

He chats about it at TCEC.
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.

Jeroen
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: New Houdini

Post by Jeroen » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:43 pm

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

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 10638
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm
Full name: Kai Laskos

Re: New Houdini

Post by Laskos » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:44 am

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%)

carldaman
Posts: 1985
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 12:13 am

re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini

Post by carldaman » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:59 am

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%)
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.

CL

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:24 am

carldaman wrote:
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%)
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.

CL
Why it says then: 650cps from both engines for 4 consecutive moves?

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?

Guenther
Posts: 3352
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:33 am
Location: Regensburg, Germany
Full name: Guenther Simon
Contact:

Re: re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini

Post by Guenther » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:29 am

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
carldaman wrote:
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%)
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.

CL
Why it says then: 650cps from both engines for 4 consecutive moves?
It means 1 pawn material advantage on the board not in the shown engine score.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: re: win adjudication/Re: New Houdini

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Oct 09, 2016 11:30 am

Guenther wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
carldaman wrote:
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%)
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.

CL
Why it says then: 650cps from both engines for 4 consecutive moves?
It means 1 pawn material advantage on the board not in the shown engine score.
How do you measure 1 point material advantage?
I might have 5 points material disadvantage and 11.50 points positional advantage, and still win.

Post Reply