Houdini 5 vs Stockfish 8

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

Have played my first 100 games with Houdini 5
Privat testbook 25 lines, AMD X6 1090T 3200 Mhz
TC 3m+2s, 4CPU, ponder off

Stockfish wins +20 -7 =73 56,5%

Code: Select all

Houdini 5 - SF 8, Blitz 3m+2s                           
1   Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT  +20/=73/-7 56.50%   56.5/100
2   Houdini 5 x64-popc     +7/=73/-20 43.50%   43.5/100

I am underway with 38 games at 5 times longer TC 15m 10s
It seems the fish is doing better with longer time
+7 -1 = 30 with a very high drawpercentage of 78,9% (with same testbook)

My guess for outcome TCEC final 88 draws and +10 - 2 for Stockfish 8

Code: Select all

Houdini 5 - SF 8, Blitz 15m+10s
                           
1   Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT  +7/=30/-1 57.89%   22.0/38
2   Houdini 5 x64-popc     +1/=30/-7 42.11%   16.0/38

For some reasons, closely related to SF search and eval specifics, SF excels in the time interval 10-30 min. At blitz, it plays weaker, and also at VLTC.

So, although I also think SF will win the final, it is not claer to me waht will be the score. I guess there will be more than 12 wins, maybe 20.

20 is mathematically nearly impossible.

Code: Select all

Event        W L  D  N   DRate    Opp1       Opp2         1st Game    Last game  Book moves

TCEC 7 Final 4:7 53  64  82,81%   SF 141214  Komodo 1333  2014.12.16  2014.12.27  8
TCEC 8 Final 9:2 89 100  89,00%   SF 011115  Komodo 9.3x  2015.11.06  2015.11.30  8

Even with a regression to let's say incredible 78% draw rate that would mean 20:2 for SF.

If we assume a more realistic draw rate of may be 85% (if the book was sharpened/ slightly more unbalanced again - ignoring even faster hardware again, which increases draw rates)
that would mean 15 decisive games. From the current test results of perhaps 55% for SF, we could deduct a final result of 12:3 +85 draws, but we don't know exactly what happens at those LTC.

Mathematically impossible? I think not. Houdini is not getting three wins. And Stockfish should reach very close to 20 wins.

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

Correction, just looked at the first games played at TCEC, and ....
Ooohhh, horror, they are using 12 to 18 moves long book (35 plies), where the game more or less ends.

Whoever made the choice of the book, made a very poor job indeed. The most interesting part of the game, opening and early middlegame, where engines made the most mistakes, is simply left out.

Under those conditions, it is possible that wins will be less, SF will be favoured more, and, absolutely regrettably, we will witness very boring final. (the games have already ended when the engines start thinking, you know)

Also, look where most games end: at move 45-55, far shorter than any menaingful game under those conditions starting at ply 4 or 5. Certainly, a game lasting 100 moves is far more interesting, is not it?

By the way, there is no 12-18 move book. The openings will vary in length. 18 moves is stated to be the largest opening for the Superfinal. Right now we have begun an eight-move opening.

[Guenther]

Correction, just looked at the first games played at TCEC, and ....
Ooohhh, horror, they are using 12 to 18 moves long book (35 plies), where the game more or less ends.

Whoever made the choice of the book, made a very poor job indeed. The most interesting part of the game, opening and early middlegame, where engines made the most mistakes, is simply left out.

Under those conditions, it is possible that wins will be less, SF will be favoured more, and, absolutely regrettably, we will witness very boring final. (the games have already ended when the engines start thinking, you know)

Also, look where most games end: at move 45-55, far shorter than any menaingful game under those conditions starting at ply 4 or 5. Certainly, a game lasting 100 moves is far more interesting, is not it?

By the way, there is no 12-18 move book. The openings will vary in length. 18 moves is stated to be the largest opening for the Superfinal. Right now we have begun an eight-move opening.

Doesn't make it better it seems.

Code: Select all

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 Bxg5 7. hxg5 Qxg5 8. Nh3 Qe7

Accepting the pawn sac with Qxg5?! isn't really considered as a good move.

[beram]

Have played my first 100 games with Houdini 5
Privat testbook 25 lines, AMD X6 1090T 3200 Mhz
TC 3m+2s, 4CPU, ponder off

Stockfish wins +20 -7 =73 56,5%

Code: Select all

Houdini 5 - SF 8, Blitz 3m+2s                           
1   Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT  +20/=73/-7 56.50%   56.5/100
2   Houdini 5 x64-popc     +7/=73/-20 43.50%   43.5/100

Last time I saw an AMD X6 1090T 3200 Mhz in the museum!!!

Well the oldies from the museum are still doing well
With 4 cores it is more than competitive or likely better, compared to the testing on 1 core on the 17-4770k that Frank or the systems that Andreas Strangmuller is using
https://sites.google.com/site/computers ... benchmarks

Code: Select all

kN/s  Cores  EXE   Processors             Speed      Hardware Users
23020   24   x64   2x Xeon E5-2697 v2     @3.22GHz   Ahmed Mansoor
21604   24   x64   2x Xeon E5-2696 v2     @3.10GHz   Lukas Cimiotti
20555   24   x64   2x Xeon E5-2696 v2     @2.97GHz   Frank Karl Werner
19754   12   x64   2x Intel Xeon X5675    @4.83GHz   George Martins
19709   24   x64   2x Xeon E5-2697 v2     @2.70GHz   Roparz
19337   12   x64   2x Intel Xeon X5667    @4.55GHz   Kim Burcham
18994   12   x64   2x Intel Xeon X5680    @4.50GHz   Rolando Acosta
17899   20   x64   2x Xeon E5-2660 v2     @2.60GHz   Adam Kostas
17650   20   x64   2x Xeon E5-2650 v3     @2.30GHz   Steinar
17149   16   x64   2x Intel Xeon E5-2687   3.10GHz   Peter Grayson
16326   12   x64   2x Intel Xeon E5645    @3.80GHz   ErO Sennin
15648    8   x64   Intel Core i7-5960X    @4.60GHz   Alan Smithee
15010   16   x64   2x Intel Xeon E5-2687W  3.10GHz   Bobby Johnson
13542   16   x64   2x Intel Xeon E5-2689   3.30GHz   Martin Thoresen
12867   32   x64   Dual AMD Opteron 6376   2.30GHz   Andreas Strangmüller
12459   12   x64   2x Intel Xeon X5650    @2.92GHz   Leto Atreides
12049    6   x64   Intel Core i7-3960X    @5.00GHz   Black Viper
11578    6   x64   Intel Core i7-3970X    @4.80GHz   Kim Burcham
11386    6   x64   Intel Core i7-3930K    @4.90GHz   Arriere Pensee
11095    6   x64   Intel Core i7-3960X    @4.60GHz   Fulcrum2000
10617    6   x64   Intel Core i7 990X     @4.40GHz   Daniel Tyson
10612    6   x64   Intel Core i7-4930K    @4.50GHz   Hauke Lutz
10512    6   x64   Intel Core i7-980X     @4.33GHz   Sedat Canbaz
10282    6   x64   Intel Core i7-980X     @4.10GHz   David Bigler
10244    6   x64   Intel Core i7-4930K    @3.98GHz   Guest71
10157    6   x64   Intel Core i7-4960X    @4.12GHz   Adam Kostas
9787     6   x64   Intel Core i7-4930K     3.40GHz   Torbjorn Johansen
9626     6   x64   Intel Core i7-970      @3.80GHz   George Steele
9471     8   x64   AMD FX-9590 Vishera    @5.00GHz   Jacob Smith
9142     8   x64   AMD FX-8150 Zambezi    @4.80GHz   Anthony Harold
9139     6   x64   Intel Core i7-5820K     3.33GHz   Enrique Lopez
8750     8   x64   AMD FX-8350 Vishera    @4.50GHz   Andreas Strangmüller
8614     8   x64   AMD FX-8350 Vishera    @4.40GHz   Felix Fernandez
8533    16   x64   Dual AMD Opteron 6376   2.30GHz   Andreas Strangmüller
8434     4   x64   Intel Core i5-4670K    @4.50GHz   Dark Wizzie
8394     6   x64   Intel Core i7-980X      3.33GHz   Sedat Canbaz
8150     6   x64   Intel Core i7-970       3.20GHz   Sedat Canbaz
7902     4   x64   Intel Core i5 2500K    @5.00GHz   Anonymous
7877     4   x64   Intel Core i7-4770K    @4.30GHz   Frank Quisinsky
7739     4   x64   Intel Core i5 2500K    @4.80GHz   Bullet
7721     8   x64   AMD FX-8350 Vishera     4.00GHz   Edsel Apostol
7760     4   x64   Intel Core i5-3570K    @4.60GHZ   Chris Cheek
7193     6   x64   AMD Phenom II X6 1100T @4.10GHz   Orlando
7097     4   x64   Intel Xeon E5620       @4.33GHz   Anonymous
6992     6   x64   AMD Phenom II X6 1100T @3.60GHz   Raymond Banks
6893     4   x64   Intel Core i5 750      @4.29GHz   Anonymous
6821     4   x64   Intel Core i7-920      @4.20GHz   Brian Richardson
6779     4   x64   Intel Xeon E5620       @4.00GHz   Anonymous
6715     8   x64   2x Intel Xeon E5450     3.00GHz   Andreas Strangmüller
6687     4   x64   Intel Core i7-2600     @4.20GHz   Andreas Strangmüller
6555     4   x64   Intel Core i7 3820     @4.30GHz   Jesse Gersenson
6489     6   x64   AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @3.50GHz   Sam Benton
6488     4   x64   Intel Core i5-4670K     3.40GHz   Dark Wizzie
6409     4   x64   Intel Core 2 QX9650    @4.60GHz   Anonymous
6465     4   x64   Intel Core i5 4670     @3.59GHz   Jean-Francois Romang
6366     6   x64   AMD Phenom II X6 1075T @3.00 GHz  Sugiarto
6331     4   x64   Intel Core i7-4930MX    3.00GHz   Sylvain Renard
6246     4   x64   Intel Core i7-3770      3.40GHz   Alienware
6248     8   x64   AMD FX-8120 Zambezi     3.10GHz   Vadim Andreev
6071     6   x64   AMD Phenom II X6 1100T  3.30GHz   Anonymous
6027     4   x64   Intel Xeon W3520       @3.80GHz   Veronix
5963     6   x64   AMD Phenom II X6 1090T  3.20GHz   Bram Mourik
5793     4   x64   Intel Core 2 QX9650    @4.23GHz   Alvarez
5746     6   w32   Intel Core i7-970       3.20GHz   Sedat Canbaz

[beram]

Have played my first 100 games with Houdini 5
Privat testbook 25 lines, AMD X6 1090T 3200 Mhz
TC 3m+2s, 4CPU, ponder off

Stockfish wins +20 -7 =73 56,5%

Code: Select all

Houdini 5 - SF 8, Blitz 3m+2s                           
1   Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT  +20/=73/-7 56.50%   56.5/100
2   Houdini 5 x64-popc     +7/=73/-20 43.50%   43.5/100

I am underway with 38 games at 5 times longer TC 15m 10s
It seems the fish is doing better with longer time
+7 -1 = 30 with a very high drawpercentage of 78,9% (with same testbook)

My guess for outcome TCEC final 88 draws and +10 - 2 for Stockfish 8

Code: Select all

Houdini 5 - SF 8, Blitz 15m+10s
                           
1   Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT  +7/=30/-1 57.89%   22.0/38
2   Houdini 5 x64-popc     +1/=30/-7 42.11%   16.0/38

After first complete run of 50 games I have 55% +7 -2 =41 so 82% draws!
I won't do another full 50 games cycle but I had +1 =3 in the first four games of that

My guess for the final was probably to conservative. Now that the final has reached game 14 we have allready three games won by Stockfish and still no win for Houdini.
Perhaps +17 -1 = 82 now is a better guess