10967 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
As a theoretician for the past 30 years, it seems clear that we are an entirely new phase in opening theory. Even a strong chess engine like Fritz 12 is not in the same league as Houdini 3.
What this means is that Houdini could be used by post members to completely redo opening theory in an open source book on chess theory developed by post members using Houdini 3 to create what I call HOT. Every main line in MCO 13, 14 and 15, ECO, BCO and and relevant organizations/publications like New In Chess or chesscafe, etc can be analyzed and published.
The next step is for post members to play and post their innovations in their own games. This would be huge jump in our understanding of opening theory.
Not really, top players are already using engines to create theoretical novelties, and no doubt engine assisted analysis is published frequently, but even the best engines are still too weak in the opening phase to really revolutionise our basic understanding of the major openings.
From personal experience dating back 30 years any pre-2008 literature in sharp openings needs to be flushed through Houdini's brain. An extreme example is MCO 15 where several main lines are completely winning for White even though MCO 15 regards them as "playable".
No doubt, although I think you'll find that this has already been done by top level players and I'm certain much of the analysis is published. There's no way any super GM is playing a sharp line these days without checking the variations with the best engines available.
But we don't find out most innovations by top professionals until they are played. Most players on the circuit today don't publish their best theory, and, in the good old days, it wasn't at all uncommon for the pros to publish faulty analysis just to trip up an unsuspecting opponent!
What I am proposing is a LINUX style site for analysis and play by players who have vetted their analysis with the Houdini engines. This would be an open source site whose only restriction is that the published games must contain openings vetted by Houdini. Perhaps a further restriction would be that all theory to be published reach a minimum depth of say 25.
What you're probably looking for is a database of centaur style high level correspondence games. I'm sure you can find it if you look.
I don't really see the point, anyone can run opening variations through Houdini. It takes real high level understanding to make any significant contribution to theory.
And regarding what Scottrf said, I think you can probably find a database of recent ICCF games, where virtually everyone will be using Houdini or something similar.
This is the first game under the format. Several of my choices differed from those chosen by Houdini. This game has relevance to opening theory because 8...Be7 is regarded by other post members as giving White the greatest difficulty securing a plus.
This game is the first attempt at this new format. It was played against Houdini 3 at 480/30 (Play started on move 9. Typically Houdini was getting out to a Depth of 26 or 27 in the early middle game) 120/10 Game in 30 [But I will not allow a time forfeit by Houdini]. Unlike other variations of the Two Knights’ Defense I have played, this is the main line. This followed my book out to move 17 when Black’s Bxh4 was not my choice).
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Na5 6.Bb5ch c6 7.dxc6 bxc6
8.Qf3 Be7 (One of the main lines)
9.Bd3 (The general consensus is that 9.Bxc6ch Nxc6 10.Qxc6ch Bd7 is adequate for equality in key lines and an advantage Black in many lines) O-O
11.Nge4 (Nigel Short got a good game with 11.h4, but I think it is equal; eventually the Knight will be driven back) Nd5
13.Nf5 Bg5 (Bc5 is another choice)
16.b3! (White wants Black to capture on f5 so that the Rook lift Rh3 is possible) Bxf5
17.Qxf5 (Houdini has this as +.36 or +/=) Bxh4!? (Houdini is saying, “There is no Kingside attack.”)
18.Bb2 Qf6! (Houdini obviously saw this based on its prior move, but it doesn’t solve Black’s long-term pawn structure which is slightly more compromised than the White pawn structure.)
20.Ne4 (Houdini still has this as +/=) Be7?!
22.Rc1 (Houdini prefers Bc3 and now says it’s equal) Nc6
23.Bc3 (Draw offer---declined---Houdini really doesn’t like to accept draw offers---Houdini is now getting out to a depth of 28 or 29) Rad8
28.Rc2 (There didn’t appear any way to win this so I thought that with Rc2/Nc1 should make the draw obvious) R8d8
32.Rc4 & I adjudicated this a draw.
The Fritz main line has been viewed by many on line posters as being equal. HOT disagrees and confers advantage White. In the final position this was a depth of 27/69.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 Nd4 6.c3 b5 7.Bf1 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5ch Bd7 10.Bc4 Nb6 11.Bxe6 Bxe6 12.O-O Be713.d4! exd4 (Qd5 14.Re1 O-O 15.dxe5 +/-) 14.cxd4 O-O 15.Nbc3 Nd5
16.Nxd5 Bxd5 17.Nc3 Rb8
18.Qc2 + 0.85 (+/-)White will follow with Be3/Rfe1/Rad1
10.Bc4 Bc6 (In this variation Black can try to restrain d4 for a long time; Houdini prefers an early d3 with a “big” advantage, but play is “anti-positional”; I'd prefer to play “positional” chess with a lesser advantage)
11.O-O Be7 (Nb6 12.Bxe6 Bxe4 13.Bg4 Bd3 14.Be2 +/-)
12.Re1 O-O 13.d4! exd4
14.cxd4 Bb4 (Rb8 15.Nbc3 Re8 16.h3 Rb4 17.b3 Nxc3 18.Nxc3 Qxd4 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Rxe6 Qxd1ch 21.Nxd1 Bf6 22.Rxe8ch Bxe8 23.Bb2 Re4 24.Nc3 Re6 25.Rd1 +/=)
15.Nbc3 Nxc3 16.bxc3 Bxe4 17.cxb4 Bd5 18.Bf1 Qd6
19.a3 +.95 at a depth of 27 (+/-)White has an extra pawn but the Knight on e6 temporarily compensates for the Bishop pair.
Why Russians are so good at chess.
by catvomit 4 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Somebodysson 5 minutes ago
Official Chess Troll of the Year!
by qiusi 5 minutes ago
guys who don't know how to play 1) d4 but still play it.
by Sangwin 5 minutes ago
by clunney 5 minutes ago
Mastery of Mating Pattern
by Breakthrough_Man 7 minutes ago
Magnus Carlsen dropped out of school in sixth grade?
by Addicted-to-Chess97 12 minutes ago
If you could combine two chess pieces powers what would the two pieces be???????
by Jaglavak 16 minutes ago
What's the catch?
by Addicted-to-Chess97 17 minutes ago
5/30/2013 - Imaginative Mating Idea
by jonate 18 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!