Rybka 4 vs Houdini 1.02 - Long TC Match - LIVE BROADCAST

Discussion of computer chess matches and engine tournaments.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, bob, hgm

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Post Reply
S.Taylor
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:25 am
Location: Jerusalem Israel

Re: the next match

Post by S.Taylor » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:07 pm

So was move 23.nh2 [game 29] forcing a slight weakening of black (either by 23...h5 or the consequences of 24.ng4)?

gerold
Posts: 10121
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: van buren,missouri

Re: the next match

Post by gerold » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:42 pm

Martin Thoresen wrote:For the next match I was thinking Houdini vs Stockfish.

BUT

A few choices I have which I can't decide on:

1: Keeping the same format
2: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with the same time controls
3: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with double the time controls

What do you think?

Also, I will double the hash size to 2048 MB.
Same just more games. Maybe 100 :) Or 200. :) :) .

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. We know Houdini would beat up on Stockfish.
P.S.2. More interesting( IMO )would be Firebird 1.3 vs.R4.

Albert Silver
Posts: 2938
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: the next match

Post by Albert Silver » Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:52 pm

gerold wrote:
Martin Thoresen wrote:For the next match I was thinking Houdini vs Stockfish.

BUT

A few choices I have which I can't decide on:

1: Keeping the same format
2: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with the same time controls
3: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with double the time controls

What do you think?

Also, I will double the hash size to 2048 MB.
Same just more games. Maybe 100 :) Or 200. :) :) .

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. We know Houdini would beat up on Stockfish.
P.S.2. More interesting( IMO )would be Firebird 1.3 vs.R4.
I prefer Stockfish to be honest. I don't see a lot of interest in another IPPO vs Rybka 4 match.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

Martin Thoresen
Posts: 1833
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:07 pm

Re: the next match

Post by Martin Thoresen » Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:28 pm

Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.

S.Taylor
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:25 am
Location: Jerusalem Israel

Re: the next match

Post by S.Taylor » Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:28 pm

Albert Silver wrote: I prefer Stockfish to be honest. I don't see a lot of interest in another IPPO vs Rybka 4 match.
i.e. another IPPO vs rybka 3


:wink:

Albert Silver
Posts: 2938
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: the next match

Post by Albert Silver » Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:41 pm

Martin Thoresen wrote:Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.
Keep it as it is, meaning maximum threads/cores for each engine when it is their turn. My 2 cents.
"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

gerold
Posts: 10121
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: van buren,missouri

Re: the next match

Post by gerold » Thu Jul 01, 2010 11:44 pm

Martin Thoresen wrote:Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.
Thanks for the tests. Be interesting to see how bad Stockfish gets
beat :) (4CPU). Nice you are willing to put this much time
in testing these engines at long TC.

Best,
Gerold.

S.Taylor
Posts: 8484
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:25 am
Location: Jerusalem Israel

Re: the next match

Post by S.Taylor » Fri Jul 02, 2010 8:26 am

I was actually wondering around this point, game 30, around move 120, if white has ways to try to win (getting his king round the back etc.), which houdini is not even trying.

Maybe i'm wrong, and that IF this were possible, it would be being played by these kind of machines without fail.

However, I've not yet seen even one response in this thread regarding comments on the games. (perhaps there is another forum/thread for this?)

gerold
Posts: 10121
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: van buren,missouri

Re: the next match

Post by gerold » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:37 pm

Martin Thoresen wrote:Thanks alot for your input, guys!

Honestly, I think 48 games are too much. Not statistically, of course, but I am thinking of cutting it down to 32 considering the time it takes just to let 1 game play through.

I also prefer to test Stockfish next so this will be my choice. I think it will be a fairly even match between SF and Houdini.

But what I need to decide is the 4CPU vs 4CPU (ponder off, like it is now) or 2CPU vs 2CPU (ponder on) and eventually to increase the time control in the latter case. I am willing to go to double from what it is now, but with 32 games.
HI Martin.
Stockfish 1.8 JA is out. It appears to be stronger than 1. 7.1

Best,
Gerold.

User avatar
Rubinus
Posts: 953
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Prague
Contact:

Re: the next match

Post by Rubinus » Fri Jul 02, 2010 1:59 pm

gerold wrote:
Martin Thoresen wrote:For the next match I was thinking Houdini vs Stockfish.

BUT

A few choices I have which I can't decide on:

1: Keeping the same format
2: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with the same time controls
3: Using 2CPU and Ponder ON, with double the time controls

What do you think?

Also, I will double the hash size to 2048 MB.
Same just more games. Maybe 100 :) Or 200. :) :) .

Best,
Gerold.

P.S. We know Houdini would beat up on Stockfish.
P.S.2. More interesting( IMO )would be Firebird 1.3 vs.R4.
Maybe use larger book. So far over short -> example E9 -> 7.de5 (stupid exchange variant). Optimal length cca 24-36 halvmoves, my guess.

Post Reply