IPON results for Houdini 4

[Modern Times]

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.

Yes that is absolutely right. With a small number of games, surprises can and do happen. That, and there is a lack of other tournaments on such high-end hardware and long time control to compare to. But at least it is better than the ICGA WCCC, and a lot of fun to follow.

[pohl4711]

But still I have no idea why there is interested in a one on one match with just 150 games?

Bye
Ingo

To be honest, I like to see these results as well - it gives a nice idea about the general consistency of the individual matches.

Looking at the over-all result of nearly 83% that Houdini 4 scores, it becomes clear that we're reaching a limit of the rating list. Next version should score over 85% against the same opponents, that's becoming too much...

Robert

Perhaps take a look at the LS-ratinglist, where each engine plays only against 10 real strong opponents and the score of Houdini 4 was "only" 67%...And each individual match contains 1000 games and can be seen in the crosstable of the LS-top10-tournament.

Stefan

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de

[Houdini]

Perhaps take a look at the LS-ratinglist, where each engine plays only against 10 real strong opponents and the score of Houdini 4 was "only" 67%...And each individual match contains 1000 games and can be seen in the crosstable of the LS-top10-tournament.

Stefan

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de

The LS-Top10 rating list has a different issue: there is too little filtering of participants. The "Top 10" list includes Strelka 5 (=Houdini 1.5), Amitis (=Stockfish) and Bouquet/Pan Chess/Mars/Robbolito (=Ivanhoe).

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

[mar]

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

Exactly, there are too many clones/derivatives (including Houdini of course). I only counted 5 or 6 original engines so maybe "clone rating list" would be more appropriate.

[pohl4711]

Perhaps take a look at the LS-ratinglist, where each engine plays only against 10 real strong opponents and the score of Houdini 4 was "only" 67%...And each individual match contains 1000 games and can be seen in the crosstable of the LS-top10-tournament.

Stefan

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de

The LS-Top10 rating list has a different issue: there is too little filtering of participants. The "Top 10" list includes Strelka 5 (=Houdini 1.5), Amitis (=Stockfish) and Bouquet/Pan Chess/Mars/Robbolito (=Ivanhoe).

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

A derivative is not a 100% clone. Of course there are similarities, but the engines are not identical.
Who can decide, how much similarity is allowed and how much is too much?
As long as an engine is not a 100% clone, I wil not ignore it.

Stefan

[velmarin]

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

Even Robbodini remember ......

how you admitted decompile his Houdini 3...
and recompiled on Robbolitto ....

This was the funny part of the day ...
No shame gives you ...

[IGarcia]

Perhaps take a look at the LS-ratinglist, where each engine plays only against 10 real strong opponents and the score of Houdini 4 was "only" 67%...And each individual match contains 1000 games and can be seen in the crosstable of the LS-top10-tournament.

Stefan

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de

The LS-Top10 rating list has a different issue: there is too little filtering of participants. The "Top 10" list includes Strelka 5 (=Houdini 1.5), Amitis (=Stockfish) and Bouquet/Pan Chess/Mars/Robbolito (=Ivanhoe).

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

Besides you are correct pointing the mistake of allowing very "similar" programs its funny the way you do.

The fact you are selling H2, H3, H4 and nobody is suing you, does not make your engine original. It has been marked as controversial (along with Rybka and other engines) in CCRL and by community in general.

Its funny to see your writings against "clones", where several people thinks H4 is an abomination as same you called robbodini. Probably the strongest abomination today.

Regards.

[Laskos]

Perhaps take a look at the LS-ratinglist, where each engine plays only against 10 real strong opponents and the score of Houdini 4 was "only" 67%...And each individual match contains 1000 games and can be seen in the crosstable of the LS-top10-tournament.

Stefan

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de

The LS-Top10 rating list has a different issue: there is too little filtering of participants. The "Top 10" list includes Strelka 5 (=Houdini 1.5), Amitis (=Stockfish) and Bouquet/Pan Chess/Mars/Robbolito (=Ivanhoe).

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

Besides you are correct pointing the mistake of allowing very "similar" programs its funny the way you do.

The fact you are selling H2, H3, H4 and nobody is suing you, does not make your engine original. It has been marked as controversial (along with Rybka and other engines) in CCRL and by community in general.

Its funny to see your writings against "clones", where several people thinks H4 is an abomination as same you called robbodini. Probably the strongest abomination today.

Regards.

Houdini 4 diverged quite a bit from Robbollito, if ICGA will ever set the 60% rule on Sim tester, Houdini will pass it. The only obstacles Houdini has are Strelka and Critter, but the pre-eminence is clear looking at their release dates. Can you guys stop being so arduous justiciaries? Already Rybka 4 was banned for a sin with Rybka 1, now you will cry "fault" on Houdini 7 based on Houdini 1.00?

[kranium]

Perhaps take a look at the LS-ratinglist, where each engine plays only against 10 real strong opponents and the score of Houdini 4 was "only" 67%...And each individual match contains 1000 games and can be seen in the crosstable of the LS-top10-tournament.

Stefan

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de

The LS-Top10 rating list has a different issue: there is too little filtering of participants. The "Top 10" list includes Strelka 5 (=Houdini 1.5), Amitis (=Stockfish) and Bouquet/Pan Chess/Mars/Robbolito (=Ivanhoe).

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

Besides you are correct pointing the mistake of allowing very "similar" programs its funny the way you do.

The fact you are selling H2, H3, H4 and nobody is suing you, does not make your engine original. It has been marked as controversial (along with Rybka and other engines) in CCRL and by community in general.

Its funny to see your writings against "clones", where several people thinks H4 is an abomination as same you called robbodini. Probably the strongest abomination today.

Regards.

Houdini 4 diverged quite a bit from Robbollito, if ICGA will ever set the 60% rule on Sim tester, Houdini will pass it. The only obstacles Houdini has are Strelka and Critter, but the pre-eminence is clear looking at their release dates. Can you guys stop being so arduous justiciaries? Already Rybka 4 was banned for a sin with Rybka 1, now you will cry "fault" on Houdini 7 based on Houdini 1.00?

Not sure why Robert is complaining...
just like him, others are working on derivatives and trying to find improvements with the Ippolit source code.
Clearly he has had great success in that endeavor...but that does not give him some sort of exclusive 'entitlement' to it

PS I seem to remember from Adams sim tester chess pages that Houdini 1.0 matches Robbolito more than 70% (an extremely high score)
I don't have info on version 2.0, 3, and 4,
but IMO it doesn't really matter now

[Laskos]

Perhaps take a look at the LS-ratinglist, where each engine plays only against 10 real strong opponents and the score of Houdini 4 was "only" 67%...And each individual match contains 1000 games and can be seen in the crosstable of the LS-top10-tournament.

Stefan

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de

The LS-Top10 rating list has a different issue: there is too little filtering of participants. The "Top 10" list includes Strelka 5 (=Houdini 1.5), Amitis (=Stockfish) and Bouquet/Pan Chess/Mars/Robbolito (=Ivanhoe).

You have "solved" the issue of average strength of opponents by letting the same programs play multiple times.

Besides you are correct pointing the mistake of allowing very "similar" programs its funny the way you do.

The fact you are selling H2, H3, H4 and nobody is suing you, does not make your engine original. It has been marked as controversial (along with Rybka and other engines) in CCRL and by community in general.

Its funny to see your writings against "clones", where several people thinks H4 is an abomination as same you called robbodini. Probably the strongest abomination today.

Regards.

Houdini 4 diverged quite a bit from Robbollito, if ICGA will ever set the 60% rule on Sim tester, Houdini will pass it. The only obstacles Houdini has are Strelka and Critter, but the pre-eminence is clear looking at their release dates. Can you guys stop being so arduous justiciaries? Already Rybka 4 was banned for a sin with Rybka 1, now you will cry "fault" on Houdini 7 based on Houdini 1.00?

Not sure why Robert is complaining...
just like him, others are working on derivatives and trying to find improvements with the Ippolit source code.
Clearly he has had great success in that endeavor...but that does not give him some sort of exclusive 'entitlement' to it

PS I seem to remember from Adams chess pages that Houdini 1.0 matches Robbolito more than 70%
I don't have info on version 2.0, 3, and 4

Houdini 3 had 57% with Robbolito, IIRC. It had 61% with Critter and 64% with Strelka, but these are results of RE of Houdini 1.5. I guess H4 has even less with Robbo.

Sorry, my opinion is that in those tests the literal clones can be substituted by multiple copies of IvanHoe, Iggorit, SF, whatever open source they took. They are almost in minute details all the same (if not even weakened).