mAGNUS CARLSEN VS houdini 2 PRO

I don't think that's correct. My Houdini always takes a minute or two to settle for a move. 

yes a computer will play a 1 against 1 minute game better but now it's 20 hours versus 1 minute. 

Maybe he can win with chess 960?

I'm pretty sure Carlsen would destroy Houdini 2 with 20 hours against 1 minute.

end of this thread?

"The food arrives, and dishes crowd the little table. How does he feel about chess computers, I ask as we fill up our plates. “I can’t beat the best computers. They have complete information, so how could we expect anything else? I don’t look at computers as opponents. For me it is much more interesting to beat humans. Again, not a trace of angst." December 7, 2012

rest of the story here

AGREE! Same case that until now noone has ever created an AI for Arimaa that can beat top players.

btw houdini created by man not machine.....nothing is impossible......;)

Carlsen have a  to win if Houdini is handicapped. No opening book. no endgame tablebase, hardware using Pentium I processor with 64 MB RAM PC-133

Any idiot would agree with you, hands down.

Hello all.  The unique film about Magnus Carlsen, the worlds best player is available for viewing here:

www.princeofchess.com

but we have to accept the fact that all GM now use engines to analyse their finished games to know which moves was wrong,

in all cases it's normal that humans lose against engines, because

chess= calculations

calculations=calculator

calculator= engine

our brain is not made to calculate like those engines

How about the experts? Anyone disagree? Correction on original post. Carlsen have a chance to win...

You can cripple any hardware/software enough to make it weaker than a human player.  This is about as meaningful as disabling a drag racer car so that an Olympic sprinter can beat it in the quarter-mile.  Better just to think of humans and chess-playing computers as two different forms of the sport.  

I've always thought of the best chess games, no matter who or what played them, as a window on genius.  That is, a chance to see something of the process underlying the best "thinking" in a way not usually possible when looking at a scientific discovery or artistic creation.  It matters little to me whether the genius was a human player or software created by a human.

I always hate it whenever people have all caps, but out of habbit comically lowercase someone's name because of the shift+ first letter in name instinct.  It makes words look too ugly.

carl may have a Photographic Memory but a 'Model' ? That's just fruity !

Because there's statistics for how long Houdini can calculate to make a game, ~50 moves, in one minute and that is not enough to beat the best chess player in the world Magnus Carlsen with 20 hours, making almost no mistake at all.

Most of this thread is speculation.  I would like Magnus to post a game he had with Rybka or Houdini so we can all see the results.  Even better would be a live game for all of us to watch.  Although it would be nice to watch him either lose or even struggle over the board, it would be astounding if he could pull off a win.

If you are playing against an engine in a correpondence game and not using an engine yourself, you will almost certainly lose.  If you are playing against a top engine-using correspondence player and only make the moves your engine recommends, you will also almost certainly lose.  

The best correspondence players know how to use their engines as a tool to explore alternative moves, using their own judgment in choosing the most strategically valid lines in complex positions.

I would like to see a match in which all these players team up:

-----------against Houdini 3 on very good hardware.

Timecontrols: 3 days/move for the humans and 1 day/move for Houdini 3. The human players may deliberate together about the best move strategy, but not use an engine. Would Houdini still win?

...and you are still rated somewhere around 1000. Please consider removing a dozen of them and- who knows, you may reach 1100.