Houdini 4 still better than Stockfish at very fast time :(

[S.Taylor]

I remember even early engines like Genius 3, played excellent chess on instant time control. Instant meant 12 plies pre-vision (which it completed before it counted one ply of quality vision), which took well under a second each move. And it needed quite a high human level to beat it.
So that was very interesting. And i remember seeing a whole game autoplayed, ie both sides played by computer, on instant, which was over in well under a minute, and then when i played it through slowly to see what the moves were, they were often moves i wouldn't have seen for a long time. (I was expert+ level)

Still, it's far from anaytic perfection or from seeing some great deep ideas. It's only interesting that the machine did it so quickly.

[felix]

I remember even early engines like Genius 3, played excellent chess on instant time control. Instant meant 12 plies vision, which took less than a second each move. And it needed quite a high human level to beat it.
So that was very interesting. And i remember seeing a whole game autoplayed, ie both sides played by computer, on instant, which was over in well under a minute, and then when i played it through slowly to see what the moves were, they were often moves i wouldn't have seen for a long time.

Still, it's far from anaytic perfection or from seeing some great deep ideas. It's only interesting that the machine did it so quickly.

I agree. I played that chess genius too (1994) and I suffered a lot.

Now imagine, 20 years later, any top engine at instant level or the time I use: 5 seconds + 100 ms. I have faith in the results

Of course at engine level, the moves are far from perfect. But for human level...

[S.Taylor]

I remember even early engines like Genius 3, played excellent chess on instant time control. Instant meant 12 plies vision, which took less than a second each move. And it needed quite a high human level to beat it.
So that was very interesting. And i remember seeing a whole game autoplayed, ie both sides played by computer, on instant, which was over in well under a minute, and then when i played it through slowly to see what the moves were, they were often moves i wouldn't have seen for a long time.

Still, it's far from anaytic perfection or from seeing some great deep ideas. It's only interesting that the machine did it so quickly.

I agree. I played that chess genius too (1994) and I suffered a lot.

Now imagine, 20 years later, any top engine at instant level or the time I use: 5 seconds + 100 ms. I have faith in the results

Of course at engine level, the moves are far from perfect. But for human level...

Well, it's only now that computer moves are analytically perfect tactically, in most positions, but not when it needs that bit more, which is what we want when we are looking for something truly stunning. I suppose you mean when playing your own line whilst using computer to check it as you go along.