Houdini 1.03a The New Nr 1 !!!

[h1a8]

Hi,

How do those results square with the one's posted here which suggest Deep Rybka 4 tops Houdini ?

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 7&start=20

The Dr. Wael Deeb settings for Fire 1.1 32 bit:

Pawn Hash: 64
Pawn Value: 120
Knight Value: 325
Bishop Value: 325
Rook Value: 600
Queen Value: 1170
Bishop Pair Value: 65
Verification Reduction: 8

With these settings FireBird 1.1 w32 ( the strongest Fire engine) is in good condition.
In my personal tests FireBird is approximately 20 elo stronger than Deep Rybka 4 32bit !

I feel a lot of elo is saved for the rental version of Rybka, so Vasik Rajlich did not care much
about this Rybka 4, what a shame.

I guess he's tired of people reverse engineering Rybka and taking his secrets. This is a sad day for computer chess. No more will we have the strongest Rybka available without this rental mess. I personally am not usually in places of internet access at most times yet I still analyze chess games and positions all the time. This is sad for me that I can't have the strongest Rybka at my fingertips without using the internet.

[Nimzovik]

Who cares? There are only so many good moves in a position. I have some really geat engines. The law of diminishing returns is suspreme in this chess paradigm..... I shall not buy any cloud or rental program ever!!! I am a hoarding midas when it comes to collecting engines. So.......... neener neeeener to the whole idea of rental programs.

[Milos]

It is all the same to me. Anyone could see from my posts in previous years that I am not a fan of any engine. Well, maybe Gaviota.

Maybe you are not "pro" fan, but you are certainly "contra" fan, i.e. you might not like specifically one engine, but there are specific engines that you hate. This is obvious from your posts.

I have read this here several times, it is not my personal opinion. Note my 'probably'.

I doubt that you read it from anyone else in this forum except from famous expert MASNARI who doesn't even understand what engine evaluation means (after so many years of testing engines, another fine example for Vincent's comment I quoted)
Your probably is related to the cause of Rybka being weaker in short TCs and not to the possibility of existing obfuscation in Rybka. You presented obfuscation in Rybka as a known fact.
In addition, you might not understand the principal of operation and you should not be blamed for that. I blame you for not using you own brain instead of blindly repeating other ppls false claims.
You think/claim Ippo is a clone/derivative of Rybka made by disassembling Rybka. On the other hand you claim Rybka has obfuscation code. So either ppl that allegedly disassembled Rybka are real geniuses or Vas is really stupid since he introduced the measure that just made his engine dumber in certain TCs but failed enormously in preventing disassembling, or simply there is not obfuscation code in Rybka.
So, I'm asking you which of these 3 possible explanations has the most common sense?

If it is a false claim why have you never told us so?

It's a fair question and I'll give a fair answer. I think there is no point (I only reacted because I saw it repeated 3 times in this thread, but, ok you were asked to clarify). Some ppl that can not understand technical facts pay much more importance on their emotions (like/hate) than on presented explanations. IMO you are in that group.

[Milos]

This is a sad day for computer chess. No more will we have the strongest Rybka available without this rental mess. I personally am not usually in places of internet access at most times yet I still analyze chess games and positions all the time. This is sad for me that I can't have the strongest Rybka at my fingertips without using the internet.

Wrong. This is a sad day for Rybka lovers like you, but it's a great day for computer chess, since there are so many other strong engines, some of them stronger than strongest Rybka Vas managed to produce after more than 2 years and all of them FREE.

P.S. Cloud Rybka is a myth. There is no such a thing at the moment, and chances are slim it will be in the future. The truth is Vas hit the wall and was unable to improve his beloved Rybka for more than miserable 40 elo after more than two years of work plus a big help of Lucas cluster for tuning and all these "official" testing groups that actually just do testing for him for free. So it's not other ppl that made great engines to blame, but Vas's sudden loss of geniality (Was there any geniality ever in him, or he was just a puppet for real creative ppl from the shadow, we'll never really know...)

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

This is a sad day for computer chess. No more will we have the strongest Rybka available without this rental mess. I personally am not usually in places of internet access at most times yet I still analyze chess games and positions all the time. This is sad for me that I can't have the strongest Rybka at my fingertips without using the internet.

Wrong. This is a sad day for Rybka lovers like you, but it's a great day for computer chess, since there are so many other strong engines, some of them stronger than strongest Rybka Vas managed to produce after more than 2 years and all of them FREE.

P.S. Cloud Rybka is a myth. There is no such a thing at the moment, and chances are slim it will be in the future. The truth is Vas hit the wall and was unable to improve his beloved Rybka for more than miserable 40 elo after more than two years of work plus a big help of Lucas cluster for tuning and all these "official" testing groups that actually just do testing for him for free. So it's not other ppl that made great engines to blame, but Vas's sudden loss of geniality (Was there any geniality ever in him, or he was just a puppet for real creative ppl from the shadow, we'll never really know...)

My vision too....I wrote it a couple of days ago....
Dr.D

[Graham Banks]

The truth is Vas hit the wall and was unable to improve his beloved Rybka for more than miserable 40 elo after more than two years of work plus a big help of Lucas cluster for tuning and all these "official" testing groups that actually just do testing for him for free.

Some of you guys have real hang ups about Rybka.

Rybka is only one of almost 200 engines that your so called "official" testing groups test for free. Testers in these groups test for their own enjoyment, but share their pooled results with the wider community in the form of rating lists.

[Milos]

Rybka is only one of almost 200 engines that your so called "official" testing groups test for free. Testers in these groups test for their own enjoyment, but share their pooled results with the wider community in the form of rating lists.

Yes you are right, testing is done for testers enjoyment, has no scientific significance and is flawed in many areas. However, problem is that results are presented as some official measurement of engine strength and as one and only real thing, like there is nothing else.
Even in this thread you have a clear example of this. Gabor is asking why there is no real confirmation that Houdini is stronger than Rybka, even though there are many tests which show it, some of them much less flawed than CCRL/CEGT testing.
In addition, these list have impact on ppl buying engines and can boost sales. The biggest impact is for the first on the rating lists ofc. And guess who that is. Moreover, this engine is the only one whose beta results are published together with others to be used as feedback for its author. It's just an ugly precedent.

[Adam Hair]

Yes you are right, testing is done for testers enjoyment, has no scientific significance and is flawed in many areas. However, problem is that results are presented as some official measurement of engine strength and as one and only real thing, like there is nothing else.
Even in this thread you have a clear example of this. Gabor is asking why there is no real confirmation that Houdini is stronger than Rybka, even though there are many tests which show it, some of them much less flawed than CCRL/CEGT testing.

Milos, you keep stating that the CCRL lists have no scientific significance,
yet you do not state why you say this. Furthermore, you also have stated
that some tests done with the Ippolit derivatives are much less flawed.
I have not seen one yet that is any better than what is done in the CCRL,
including one that I ran and posted in the Open Chess forum. Perhaps
you could state your grievances concerning CCRL methodologies, either
in a new thread or pm me. The CCRL most definitely has flaws, yet the
total disregard of its results by you seems to be due to things unrelated
to science. I have seen many outlandish statements and insults from you.
Perhaps you could dial back the antagonism and start giving thoughtful
statements. I have found several things that you have said quite interesting.
Unfortunately, too much of the time you are more interested in attacking
than in debating and pointing out the holes in other peoples' arguments.

[Graham Banks]

Rybka is only one of almost 200 engines that your so called "official" testing groups test for free. Testers in these groups test for their own enjoyment, but share their pooled results with the wider community in the form of rating lists.

Yes you are right, testing is done for testers enjoyment, has no scientific significance and is flawed in many areas. However, problem is that results are presented as some official measurement of engine strength and as one and only real thing, like there is nothing else.
Even in this thread you have a clear example of this. Gabor is asking why there is no real confirmation that Houdini is stronger than Rybka, even though there are many tests which show it, some of them much less flawed than CCRL/CEGT testing.
In addition, these list have impact on ppl buying engines and can boost sales. The biggest impact is for the first on the rating lists ofc. And guess who that is. Moreover, this engine is the only one whose beta results are published together with others to be used as feedback for its author. It's just an ugly precedent.

It is strongly advised to look at the many other rating lists available in order to get a more accurate overall picture of an engine's rating relative to others.

The above statement always appears in our update notes.
When all rating lists show a similar correlation between the comparative ratings of any engine, it's pretty hard to argue that they're all wrong.

[frcha]

Rybka is only one of almost 200 engines that your so called "official" testing groups test for free. Testers in these groups test for their own enjoyment, but share their pooled results with the wider community in the form of rating lists.

Yes you are right, testing is done for testers enjoyment, has no scientific significance and is flawed in many areas. However, problem is that results are presented as some official measurement of engine strength and as one and only real thing, like there is nothing else.
Even in this thread you have a clear example of this. Gabor is asking why there is no real confirmation that Houdini is stronger than Rybka, even though there are many tests which show it, some of them much less flawed than CCRL/CEGT testing.
In addition, these list have impact on ppl buying engines and can boost sales. The biggest impact is for the first on the rating lists ofc. And guess who that is. Moreover, this engine is the only one whose beta results are published together with others to be used as feedback for its author. It's just an ugly precedent.

It is strongly advised to look at the many other rating lists available in order to get a more accurate overall picture of an engine's rating relative to others.

The above statement always appears in our update notes.
When all rating lists show a similar correlation between the comparative ratings of any engine, it's pretty hard to argue that they're all wrong.

I think the main flaw is the exclusion of certain engines ...The topic of this thread - Houdini is new # 1 cannot be answered by looking at CCRL since it is not allowed.
Still, the origin of the ippolit engines is unclear and I guess you will only include them if they are proven to NOT be derivatives!