gotogo wrote:at your current price if bought from you it would cost 75 bucks plus or minus and if you purchased fritz at 55 bucks without vat then we get 130 bucks.
fritz with houdini pro is only 110 without vat. the saving is still better with chessbase
I still recommend to buy from chessbase.
What's this weird discussion?
If you're interested in Houdini 3+Fritz GUI, buy Houdini 3+Fritz GUI.
If you're interested in Houdini 3+Aquarium, buy Houdini 3+Aquarium.
If you're interested in the engine, buy Houdini 3 stand-alone.
You cannot go wrong, in all cases you get great value for money.
(my apologies to the forum for the commercial content )
Yeah, Your right... what's unfortunate about buying Houdini 3? for me buying is a profound pleasure. Oh well they just have to lie awake nights
The road to chaos is filled with political correctness.
― Tadros
S.Taylor wrote:I hope it's not true about every GUI, or setting. And if it is, then i resign! chess is not for me anymore. (since i am dependent on computers to help me study chess).
Don't blow off your top!
For one, beating Chess engines is very easy, (even without cheating them for time), provided you pick the right engine.
Not everyone wants to use a GUI for the same purpose. Some want to be flagged, some don't. So GUIs have a checkbox to turn the flagging on or off. If that is too 'user unfriendly' for you, and you can only use those GUIs where the default settings with which they come 'out of the box' happen to be exactly as you want, then indeed I fear that computer Chess (or in fact any contact with computers) is not for you...
I don't recall you told me that before, but if you did, i apologise and i certainly take back my expressions of frustration. I only hope i find i can easily do it, which may be during next day or so, or, after several weeks when i go away and come back.
Obviously, there's nothing bad about a good flagging system ALSO.
But what do you mean about "easy to beat"? I thought that no human can beat a top engine in a match anymore. Already a long time.
S.Taylor wrote:
But what do you mean about "easy to beat"? I thought that no human can beat a top engine in a match anymore. Already a long time.
He meant that a top engine like Houdini is easy to trick into positions where the engines are clueless, so that the top engines don't constitute a strong adversary for humans.
S.Taylor wrote:
But what do you mean about "easy to beat"? I thought that no human can beat a top engine in a match anymore. Already a long time.
He meant that a top engine like Houdini is easy to trick into positions where the engines are clueless, so that the top engines don't constitute a strong adversary for humans.
But if we could do that in the middle of an actual game, then why havn't the top GM's done that when they had their famous games vs computer?
Laskos wrote:He meant that a top engine like Houdini is easy to trick into positions where the engines are clueless, so that the top engines don't constitute a strong adversary for humans.
Not really. I meant playing against Usurpator II is much more fun that playing against Houdini, and does not require you to resort to time odds.
I think perhaps you mean it is easy to beat a chess engine with another chess engine? I really don't think any human can beat any of the top 50 chess engines, on modern equipment, and over, say, a 7 game tournement. Indeed, on modern equipment, i reckon Ruffian would kick every human's arse.
S.Taylor wrote:
But what do you mean about "easy to beat"? I thought that no human can beat a top engine in a match anymore. Already a long time.
He meant that a top engine like Houdini is easy to trick into positions where the engines are clueless, so that the top engines don't constitute a strong adversary for humans.
But if we could do that in the middle of an actual game, then why havn't the top GM's done that when they had their famous games vs computer?
The engines back then weren't that strong, so it was harder to beat them. Nowadays it's enough to trick Houdini into a loosing position to beat it.
S.Taylor wrote:
But what do you mean about "easy to beat"? I thought that no human can beat a top engine in a match anymore. Already a long time.
He meant that a top engine like Houdini is easy to trick into positions where the engines are clueless, so that the top engines don't constitute a strong adversary for humans.
He did not mean it because it is not correct.
There are positions that houdini does not understand like the following position that h.g.muller posted in the past(and houdini3 also does not understand that black has the advantage) but you cannot practically trick houdini to get this position in a chess game.
[D]1nnnknn1/3ppp2/2n2n2/8/8/8/3PPP2/1Q1QK1Q1 w - - 0 1
S.Taylor wrote:
But what do you mean about "easy to beat"? I thought that no human can beat a top engine in a match anymore. Already a long time.
He meant that a top engine like Houdini is easy to trick into positions where the engines are clueless, so that the top engines don't constitute a strong adversary for humans.
But if we could do that in the middle of an actual game, then why havn't the top GM's done that when they had their famous games vs computer?
The engines back then weren't that strong, so it was harder to beat them. Nowadays it's enough to trick Houdini into a loosing position to beat it.
I do not understand.
The fact that the engines then were weaker means that it was easier to beat them and not that it was harder to beat them.
)
