< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·
|Dec-09-13|| ||Daisuki: I think 0/0 aggressiveness/cowardice might be best, as it took much longer to get mated because it pushed many pawns and didn't trade pieces quickly. I tested all four extreme combinations and the 100/100 default combination, all with -50 contempt. I don't know when I'll try a long game.|
|Dec-09-13|| ||Marmot PFL: Looks at it from Carlsen's POV. If he wins, big deal he has a big edge to begin with, and if he loses it would be too embarrassing.|
|Dec-10-13|| ||SChesshevsky: <Daisuki: ...if we simply castled into black's half-open h file manned by the Rh8.... Anyway, pushing pawns aggressively also has its drawbacks..>|
Related to castling, that's my point the pawn's advantage actually turned into a disadvantage because the King would not castle. As in the game, the King moves 7 times by move 35 all on the back rank. That doesn't exactly suggest proper play needed to achieve equality.
Related to pawn pushing, I'm obviously not advocating woodpusher pawn attacks but with the Knight on the a-file, O-O-O, and if the Rooks were connected without tempo loss it looks like White has at least a shot at equality. You don't have to promote the pawn but gain space on the Kside, exchange the lead for another then try to keep the pressure on that minority side and look to keep exchanging pawns. Certainly not the same strategy as one would use to win even-up.
That's why I think a chess computer's program would likely have to be altered to favor lines which have the best chances for drawing rather than trying to gain any sort of advantage.
That's the idea of computer vs. computer. If the disadvantaged computer can draw a significant number of times against another similar computer, and if it can be tweaked to even be better at drawing, then the assumption is that against a top player with odds the computer might not win but might also rarely lose.
|Dec-10-13|| ||Daisuki: In the game black doubled rooks on the h file. So castling kingside probably would've been bad. White could've castled queenside after black did, but by then white had disturbed its pawn structure there. I think overall it's a problem because you can't just not disturb your pawn structure anywhere, so wherever you castle black can just double rooks (or set up Alekhine's gun) and slam you. The more you trade pawns, the more mobility that extra piece gets, too, which is also a problem. Even if you play better than your opponent and get a passed pawn for no material or positional concession I think that passed pawn would just get eaten later. And I really don't see how to get multiple passed pawns without issues. Honestly I would expect a more passive strategy based on having pawns in front and trading and opening the position as little as possible to perhaps have better chances, but when I personally try this while up the full knight against Houdini or Stockfish it's a fine line between holding things together and getting so passive that I fall apart at least a little. Engines could do better, but how much better I don't know.|
|Dec-11-13|| ||SChesshevsky: <Daisuki: ... a more passive strategy based on having pawns in front and trading and opening the position as little as possible to perhaps have better chances...>|
A great discussion. Lots to think about. Related to the above comment and unrelated to computer play, the general theory is that with a material disadvantage, even a pawn, passive play typically loses outright. The strategy with advantage is to get good position, easier when there are no complications, then position the King and then exchange for the endgame. It's easier with the Rooks off. Best defense is usually to try to create an unbalance somewhere, stir up complications and swindle.
It's probably ancient history now but when I played a lot, being a pawn up, especially the right one, meant a won game. Byrne once wrote about Fischer's poisoned pawn defense that though risky, the pawn if held means a won game. Or something like that. It might be something to consider for own play as it might still be true.
|Dec-11-13|| ||kardopov: C'mmon, start the nudging. Who's gonna hurl the first salvo? Maybe a program developer should challenge Carlsen to a winner take all match with the prize coming from both parties as a wager, say to the amount of 2M Dollars. Both parties have to raise 1M each. The condition: 7 games of classical chess, less knight for the computer.|
|Dec-11-13|| ||Daisuki: I know passive play is generally bad, but engines default to active play, and that seems like a loser when you're down a piece, unless you have <many> extra pawns. Two pawns doesn't seem to be very close to cutting it (in terms of expected score; I know the ~200-point inferior Rybka couldn't win in a couple of its 3'+2" games, but more equal engines always did so far) between two roughly equal strong engines. "Swindles" just aren't really going to happen in such engine games, as "complications" are no problem for engines, and, as stated by others, tactics favor the player with the extra piece. I'm sure it would work better between more unequal players and/or players enough lower in skill so as to be unable to exploit the extra piece too well relative to the two extra pawns. Otherwise complications and active play are like marching forward to your death, since you are down the piece. Of course everything's a matter of death, but it did take a third more moves in a 3'+2" game for Houdini to mate Stockfish when Stockfish was set to 0/0 aggressiveness/cowardice (which seems to mean that it doesn't care much about both reducing the opponent's king safety and increasing its own king safety, respectively). Under this setting it didn't seem to place its pieces so aggressively or trade them much, and it kept the position more closed by pushing pawns, which seems better than normal in this situation.|
Yes, I'd say that an extra pawn from a starting position would probably often be won (between equal enough, good enough players).
|Dec-11-13|| ||Daisuki: -50/0/0 contempt factor/aggressiveness/cowardice Stockfish lost to Houdini in 56 moves, while -50/100/100 (the latter two being defaults) lost in 55 moves. Both games were 60'+30". I don't really see an easy way to make it drag out the game. I could play with pawn settings, but in the end the piece is worth way more than the two pawns to engines. The starting position with Nb1, a7, and h7 missing is evaluated at -2 to -3 by various engines, in spite of white having the advantage of the first move.|
|Feb-15-14|| ||FairyPromotion: Oh my, oh my, oh my....
What a game by Houdini! Chess is amazing!!
|Jun-08-14|| ||supertimchan: http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccr...
Houdini is now just the second best engine in the world, far behind the Stockfish champion. In the computer engine world, Houdini is more or less like Aronian. Strong, stable but not the best.
Stockish would be Magnus Carlsen. Dominate everything and winning everything.
|Jun-08-14|| ||supertimchan: Professional players are leaving Houdini because it's simply expensive and much weaker than Stockfish. Google TCEC chess championship and you'll see Houdini was owned by the Stockfish team.|
|Jun-08-14|| ||supertimchan: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi...
Houdini lost to Stockfish on the rating list. Just another stupid commercial product which doesn't provide anything over a free alternative. Don't be fool, stay away from Houdini.
|Jun-08-14|| ||N0B0DY: The uncompromising 'high quality standards' of this troll need to be reflected in the showroom.|
|Jun-08-14|| ||supertimchan: You talking about me? Are you serious? Houdini has been proven as a much weaker chess engine than the world's number one Stockfish. Look at the TCEC world computer chess championship how Houdini 4 performed.|
Only fools would purchase for a weak engine when the strongest is free.
|Jun-08-14|| ||supertimchan: Look at http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccr... yourself.|
Houdini is no longer a relevant chess engine to the top players. Stockfish is much stronger. Stockfish is programmed by Tord.R who is also a computer adviser to Magnus Carlsen.
Robert Houdart can't possibly compete with the Carlsen's top adviser and many many other open source contributor.
|Jun-08-14|| ||supertimchan: We're about to witness a repeat of Rybka. Houdini will fade away from the computer chess community simply because it's slow and weak.|
|Jun-08-14|| ||N0B0DY: Houston, weíve had a problem.|
|Oct-13-14|| ||Penguincw: Houdini 4 off to a good start in the TCEC Season 7 Stage 1b group, as it's off to a 5/5 start. It wasn't all easy, as Houdini (3145) had to face 4th seed Senpai (2973) with black, and won.|
I'm not sure if Houdini can beat Nightmare 7.82a (2808, 2/5), but in Round 7, Houdini will have Exchess 7.31b (2670, 0.5/6) with white. :|
I doubt Houdini will make it 10/10, but if it does, I doubt it could go any farther, as beating the top seed (Komodo 8, 3151, 4/5) must be a nightmare.
|Oct-23-14|| ||Penguincw: Update: Houdini's winning streak was snapped after Naum (3001) drew it with black in Round 8. Houdini still finished with an incredible 11.5/13, yet is TIED for 1st with Komodo. However, Houdini is 2nd on tiebreaks (SB) becasuse of the loss against Komodo. Nevertheless, an incredible performance.|
|Oct-23-14|| ||OhioChessFan: <supertimchan: Houdini will fade away from the computer chess community simply because it's slow and weak. >|
|Jul-23-16|| ||scholes: There is going to be first update of Houdini in 3 years. Houdini 5 dev version is playing in TCEC stage 3. It soundly defeated reigning WCCC Komodo in first game of stage 3. But since TCEC is a scam they had to replay the game. Houdini 5 is expected to be relased in November|
|Feb-02-17|| ||AylerKupp: If you are planning to order the latest Houdini version, 5.01, be careful. I attempted to order it on Jan-26-2017. Their order web site had a pull down menu for specifying a shipping method but, when I clicked on it, I couldn't specify anything. On previous orders of Houdini I was provided with a link to download the software after my purchase was approved but this time the confirmation email indicated that no shipping method was specified. Which was not surprising since I was not allowed to specify one.|
What is surprising and worrisome is that I contacted Robert Houdart, Houdini's primary developer at the email address provided and got no response. I also did not get any response to another issue that I contacted him about via email for my planned purchase of Houdini 5.0. I would have thought that questions about being able to order their product would receive a high response priority.
I needed to contact PayPal directly even though I thought that, by specifying that I wanted to have the purchase charged to my Visa card directly, that PayPal would not be involved. But involved they were. They had to contact Robert Houdart twice in response to my request for a refund, but I did have a refund for my purchase provided within a few days.
I checked Houdini's website today and apparently their order shop is temporarily closed and will reopen on February 8. Maybe my experience caught their attention and hopefully they will have fixed this problem by then. Still, I wonder if anyone on their staff tried to check the ordering process before they went live.
|Apr-13-17|| ||AylerKupp: Has anyone been successful in purchase Houdini 5.01? After my bad experience in the post above I tried again to purchase it after their web page was updated. But, once again, it took my money via PayPal and provided no indication as to how I was supposed to obtain it. So, once again, I requested a refund and, once again, I got it.|
Emails to Robert Houdart at firstname.lastname@example.org as indicated on their web site have gone unanswered. I have never seen a commercial organization which is apparently trying to sell a product but makes it impossible for its customers to purchase it. At least no commercial organizations that stay in business very long.
If anyone has any suggestions on how to successfully purchase their product, please let me know.
|Apr-23-17|| ||rokko: If you buy Houdini 5.01 from a chess-specialised shop (not directly) it works perfectly well. I use it since Christmas and am very satisfied. I just tried some of the critical cases from the Stockfish forum and it works well (Larsen's Qa7 was found in 10 seconds on a laptop). My impression is that it needs a similar time to Stockfish to find some of the results and shows them at a lower depth (26 vs. 34, for example). Better than SF8, probably not, but a different perspective.|
|Apr-28-17|| ||AylerKupp: <rokko> Thanks. I thought about doing that but, perhaps not surprisingly, it was cheaper to buy it from someone else rather than from the Houdini site. I was attracted to the Houdini site because (a) it was cheaper and (b) I had bought it from the Houdini site several times before without any problems and had downloaded the free versions prior to that, also without any problems. But maybe this is their way to discourage direct purchases. Which, if thatís the case, itís a bizarre way of doing it. Why not just direct customers to commercial sites?|
So I guess itís now a case of finding the cheapest commercial site.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 7 ·