Houdini 3 vs ClusterRybka Game 3 ...

[IWB]

... is planed for Tuesday, 4th of December, 19.00 CET on Playchess.

This time we picked a short but common opening.

Bye
Ingo

[Lion]

Excellent
Which opening is it going to be ?

[IWB]

Something we haven't seen in the two first games ...

Bye
Ingo

[S.Taylor]

... is planed for Tuesday, 4th of December, 19.00 CET on Playchess.

This time we picked a short but common opening.

Bye
Ingo

Now that we see Grahams tournament, and Rybka is on top of Houdini with equal haredware, how can it be that the cluster isn't said to be WEAKER than a normal quad?

[syzygy]

Now that we see Grahams tournament, and Rybka is on top of Houdini with equal haredware, how can it be that the cluster isn't said to be WEAKER than a normal quad?

If Carlsen does not win the tournament he is currently competing in, will you say that he is a WEAKER player than whoever wins it?

[S.Taylor]

Now that we see Grahams tournament, and Rybka is on top of Houdini with equal haredware, how can it be that the cluster isn't said to be WEAKER than a normal quad?

If Carlsen does not win the tournament he is currently competing in, will you say that he is a WEAKER player than whoever wins it?

So in other words, you mean to reassure me that the Cluster Rybka used here, is extremely high above Rybka 4.1 on a pc, Even though it has already lost to houdini 2-0.

A massive cluster which people have to hire to use, ought to not lose 2 games in a row to something so weak as a Houdini 3 on a PC. Are they paying for sport? They're paying for reliability in showing the best move that any computer would find.

[carldaman]

I would agree that the Rybka cluster seems overrated in terms of its billing, but 2 games is premature to draw such a conclusion on. Besides, Houdini 3 on really good hardware is not so 'weak' as you claim.

CL

[enhorning]

I would love to again see somebody webcast it for those of us without playchess accounts, as happened with the second game, which I greatly enjoyed watching.

[Uri Blass]

... is planed for Tuesday, 4th of December, 19.00 CET on Playchess.

This time we picked a short but common opening.

Bye
Ingo

Now that we see Grahams tournament, and Rybka is on top of Houdini with equal haredware, how can it be that the cluster isn't said to be WEAKER than a normal quad?

I think that the conditions are different and it is possible that in graham's tournament the book was practically a decisive factor in part of the games.

The interesting questions are if other programs could score better from the positions that houdini got
and if there are not unbalanced positions when white get something like 70% or 80% if you start from them.

We can find the answer to the second question if somebody makes a tournament from the positions that houdini started and lost.

[S.Taylor]

... is planed for Tuesday, 4th of December, 19.00 CET on Playchess.

This time we picked a short but common opening.

Bye
Ingo

Now that we see Grahams tournament, and Rybka is on top of Houdini with equal haredware, how can it be that the cluster isn't said to be WEAKER than a normal quad?

I think that the conditions are different and it is possible that in graham's tournament the book was practically a decisive factor in part of the games.

The interesting questions are if other programs could score better from the positions that houdini got
and if there are not unbalanced positions when white get something like 70% or 80% if you start from them.

We can find the answer to the second question if somebody makes a tournament from the positions that houdini started and lost.

Exactly. It might be more than just blindly "statistics". It would need to be tested from those positions. But that would be a massive project. (but after the first 9 games, it DID look like Houdini is very strong, from the results score alone).