oreopoulos wrote:As a player that just uses engine for analysis and not like horses that compete my observations are...
As playing engines for years I agree that we (humans) have an impression about a playing style. Unfortunately I usually get disapointed sooner or later because trying to "understand" top engines "playing style" is in vain ...
Houdini wrote:Ingo Bauer was so kind to run the IPON rating list matches for the new Houdini 4.
The result is a +39 Elo increase compared to Houdini 3.
The new complete IPON rating list is given below.
People at the Rybka Forum asked for the individual match results, I might as well also publish them here.
Note that in the following list the Elo scale is calibrated differently, setting Houdini 3 at 3000 points.
lkaufman wrote:.... while at standard chess they are too close to call.
Considering our 5'+3" results I doubt that. Actually Houdini 4 is rated 3117 while performance of StockyDD is ~3060-3070. So around +40-50 points in f/o Houdini, which is definetely not "to close to call" especially on this high level...
I admit that with longer TC (40/20, 40/40 or even 40/120) the differences will decrease.
lkaufman wrote:Based on the results posted here so far, the fairest thing to say about Houdini 4 and StockfishDD (or any November version) is that Houdini is clearly stronger in blitz, while at standard chess they are too close to call. A. Huerga's new LTC list, based on at least 600 games per engine, has Stockfish 5 elo points ahead of Houdini 4, well within the error margin. These results do show that Stockfish scales better than Houdini, so I would probably use SF over Houdini for analysis (i.e. for second opinion after Komodo!), but the jury is still out.
There is no standard chess. TC without hardware is meaningless.
5'+3'' on 6 cores OC fast machine for example is longer than CCRL 40/40 on a single core.
What is bullet today was LTC (FIDE) less than 8 years ago in terms of quality. Also what is LTC today in 10 years will be bullet.
oreopoulos wrote:As a player that just uses engine for analysis and not like horses that compete my observations are...
As playing engines for years I agree that we (humans) have an impression about a playing style. Unfortunately I usually get disapointed sooner or later because trying to "understand" top engines "playing style" is in vain ...
Bye
Ingo
Hello Ingo, is it planned to test Stockfish DD in 5m+3s ?
lkaufman wrote:.... while at standard chess they are too close to call.
Considering our 5'+3" results I doubt that. Actually Houdini 4 is rated 3117 while performance of StockyDD is ~3060-3070. So around +40-50 points in f/o Houdini, which is definetely not "to close to call" especially on this high level...
I admit that with longer TC (40/20, 40/40 or even 40/120) the differences will decrease.
By standard chess I mean time limits that FIDE would rate, such as 90' + 30" or longer. It is very clear that Houdini's superiority over Komodo and Stockfish at blitz does not translate to superiority at these much longer time limits. If you believed that time limit doesn't matter (other than the spread of the ratings), why would CEGT and CCRL bother to test at short and long time controls?
Martin Thoresen wrote:
TCEC is a different beast than any of the rating lists. Lots of cores, lots of time to think for the engines.
Closer to the user behavior when they use an engine for analysis? Yes.
Statistically comparable to blitz rating lists? No.
Sure, its more like you say and great fun and interesting.
The point is to be clear (without any been offended) is the tournament was not conclusive. There are some people out there telling SF DD and Komodo nTCEC2 are stronger than Houdini 4, using your tournament as back proof.
IWB wrote:
Vinvin wrote:
Hello Ingo, is it planned to test Stockfish DD in 5m+3s ?
It WAS planned after H4!
It was planned and testing now, or... "WAS" means now is canceled?
Bye
Inog
Inog ? Funny I many times type my name Igancio, nasty bug, seems im not the only one.