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
mAGNUS CARLSEN VS houdini 2 PRO
Sort:
Hello all. The unique film about Magnus Carlsen, the worlds best player is available for viewing here:
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
pfren wrote:
Mandy711 wrote:
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.
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 !
FEDTEL wrote:
Rasparovov wrote:
FEDTEL wrote:
Rasparovov wrote:
yes a computer will play a 1 against 1 minute game better but now it's 20 hours versus 1 minute.
maybe, but 20 hours is too much (I meant 30 mins for Carlsen), even with 20 hours Magnus Carlsen can win some games ofc but not "destroy" houdini playing 1mins\game as mentioned above, let alone 30 mins for Houdini.
I'm pretty sure Carlsen would destroy Houdini 2 with 20 hours against 1 minute.
How can we know who's right?
( destroying a player is not defeating him\it in one match, it's defeating him\it in almost all the matches played)
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:
| 1 | Carlsen, Magnus | g | NOR | 2861 | 8 | 1990-11-30 |
| 2 | Kramnik, Vladimir | g | RUS | 2810 | 8 | 1975-06-25 |
| 3 | Aronian, Levon | g | ARM | 2802 | 8 | 1982-10-06 |
| 4 | Radjabov, Teimour | g | AZE | 2793 | 0 | 1987-03-12 |
| 5 | Caruana, Fabiano | g | ITA | 2781 | 11 | 1992-07-30 |
| 6 | Karjakin, Sergey | g | RUS | 2780 | 11 | 1990-01-12 |
| 7 | Anand, Viswanathan | g | IND | 2772 | 8 | 1969-12-11 |
| 8 | Topalov, Veselin | g | BUL | 2771 | 0 | 1975-03-15 |
| 9 | Nakamura, Hikaru | g | USA | 2769 | 8 | 1987-12-09 |
-----------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?
pfren wrote:
jamesmichael wrote:
.I have Houdini 2 Pro , Strelka , Critter, StoackFish,RobboLito,Bouquet,Deep Saros, Deep Rybka and Vitruvius,I think all together i have at least 188 Chess Programs.
...and you are still rated somewhere around 1000. Please consider removing a dozen of them and- who knows, you may reach 1100.
But he'll still be alive once you're dead...
Ultimate win
xGRENDEL wrote:
pfren wrote:
jamesmichael wrote:
.I have Houdini 2 Pro , Strelka , Critter, StoackFish,RobboLito,Bouquet,Deep Saros, Deep Rybka and Vitruvius,I think all together i have at least 188 Chess Programs.
...and you are still rated somewhere around 1000. Please consider removing a dozen of them and- who knows, you may reach 1100.
But he'll still be alive once you're dead...
Ultimate win
Unless the battery runs down or electric goes out......
xGRENDEL wrote:
pfren wrote:
jamesmichael wrote:
.I have Houdini 2 Pro , Strelka , Critter, StoackFish,RobboLito,Bouquet,Deep Saros, Deep Rybka and Vitruvius,I think all together i have at least 188 Chess Programs.
...and you are still rated somewhere around 1000. Please consider removing a dozen of them and- who knows, you may reach 1100.
But he'll still be alive once you're dead...
Ultimate win
But he'll still die eventually, not a win.
Clavius wrote:
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'd like to see you prove this by playing an engine and losing.
Winnie_Pooh wrote:
Yes, I agree.
Even without opening book and endgame tables the latest versions of the top engines (Houdini, Fritz, Rybka, ..) can´t be beaten anymore by an human player.
But always remember, when your computer gets too cocky you can always pull the plug. :) Cheers, John C.
strngdrvnthng wrote:
Winnie_Pooh wrote:
Yes, I agree.
Even without opening book and endgame tables the latest versions of the top engines (Houdini, Fritz, Rybka, ..) can´t be beaten anymore by an human player.
But always remember, when your computer gets too cocky you can always pull the plug. :) Cheers, John C.
IM pfren meant engine + humans > engine only. You are an unexplainable example of an extreme retardation caused by brain cell mutation if you think engine > engine + human. Elementary math bro, elementary math..
That is not math. If Anand and Kramnik (ELO ratings 2783 and 2808) play together, they won't magically get a rating of 5591. They'll be somewhat stronger (maybe around 2850? This is just speculation), but we can't simply add their ratings. Anand playing with a 2100 won't make the slightest difference to his rating.
Whether Engine + Human > Engine depends entirely on the relative strengths of the human and the engine. A 2100 human + Houdini = Houdini.
Carlsen + Houdini is probably slightly stronger than Houdini alone. In most correspondance games though, if players around 2400 play with Houdini against Houdini, they'll probably lose if they start using their own moves. Houdini is much, much stronger than everyone else on Earth.
feygooner wrote:
That is not math. If Anand and Kramnik (ELO ratings 2783 and 2808) play together, they won't magically get a rating of 5591. They'll be somewhat stronger (maybe around 2850? This is just speculation), but we can't simply add their ratings. Anand playing with a 2100 won't make the slightest difference to his rating.
Whether Engine + Human > Engine depends entirely on the relative strengths of the human and the engine. A 2100 human + Houdini = Houdini.
Carlsen + Houdini is probably slightly stronger than Houdini alone. In most correspondance games though, if players around 2400 play with Houdini against Houdini, they'll probably lose if they start using their own moves. Houdini is much, much stronger than everyone else on Earth.
What the heck are you saying? And where the heck did you see that I posted rating + rating? I posted Engine + human > engine only, where the heck did you imply your freakin' post??
btw houdini created by man not machine.....nothing is impossible......;)