mAGNUS CARLSEN VS houdini 2 PRO

Just as there is no religion in +, there are no "good" and "bad" moves. I only know "good" and "bad" people.

It is not that there are "emotional" moves "filled with soul", but as beings who have emotions, and a soul, everything we do is permeated by our consciousness, or lack of it.

Computers are great calculators, but they don't "play" chess. By definition, a chessplayer is a human being. And the word "human" denotes a complex, complete being, of which the mental aspect is just one part of the being.

You know what SHOULD happen is that chess machines all over the world will go against each other in a Computer Chess World Championship or something. Like people build their own machines and use them to play against others. "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?"

Hi, I would interested in how to best players beat Houdini

Basically, they would have to have ample time to go over all of the variations too. Then they would have to purposely pick moves that take advantages of the programs lack of positional and stategic understanding.

It would be a tall order for anyone. In my opinion, any GM would still most likely lose in a one game scenario. They probably would only win 2 out of 20 with about 5 draws in my opinion.

As I said before, only way to make it fair is to let the GM consult another engine, and then choose the moves he/she likes best.

I'm not sure what movie you're describing, but it's not 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Doh!

In 2001: A Space Odyssey the HAL9000 computer beat the astronaut at chess but made a small error in talking about the final combination, the first sign that it was breaking down.  Nice posting about it here: http://www.chess.com/article/view/2001-a-chess-space-odyssey

Clavius describes a minor scene accurately. I've seen the movie about 30 times since around 1970 and I've read the book as well. Pretty sure that other stuff isn't in there anywhere.

Carlsen would destroy Houdini if you give him 20 hours versus Houdini having 30 minutes.

Elo ratings based on Computer vs computer games (the only ones available for software these days) don't correspond exactly to what they would be if humans played against them in rated games. However, as an approximation, each time you cut the engine's thinking time in half this drops its Elo by about 100 points. For Game/30, assuming an average of 40 moves per game, that is about 45 seconds per move so Houdini would lose 200 Elo and play at about the 3100 level on standard, current hardware.  Could Magnus boost his rating more than 250 points if allowed 20 hours per game?  I am quite skeptical.

Hydra the super computer was reemed 6-0 by a correspondence player a few years ago. Granted, the hardware was older, but advances in computer chess and engine algorithims haven't gained much lately. The hardware  however is much stronger. Yet Hydra was a friggin SUPER computer. And it lost back to back to back with 3 white and 3 black and it had equal amount of time to make all moves.

Somehow I missed the match Guardian mentions.  Is there any record somewhere?  

Wikipedia reports: Hydra has, however, been beaten by humans who had access to the advice of other programs during their games; for example, correspondence chessInternational Grandmaster Arno Nickel beat an older version of Hydra in a two-game correspondence match lasting six months. The 32-node version that played against Adams managed to draw Nickel in their third game, which lasted five months and ended in December 2005.

Note that Nickel had access to other computers and was not playing unaided.

FYI, here is a link to a blog about OTB human v computer handicap matches: http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/man-vs-computer-match-ends-in-victory-for-man-but-with-a-catch/

I would dare to say that your ignorance is abysmal.

By the way , havent you all heard of anti computer style???

You can beat computers by playing as black 1.d4 h5 2.e4 e5

If you dont believe me, google "chess curiosities" and you will arrive on Tim Krabbe's homepage Click "computers cannot play chess" to find the story.

Carlsen was once asked in an interview how he does against the computer. He said that he doesn't play against his computer because it wins most of the time and it's not interesting. He did not say that the computer wins all of the time.

If you turn off the opening book, I'd bet most GMs could draw against a computer as white most of the time in longer time control games. Computers are better than humans, but they still don't play the opening as well as humans.

15 years ago this may have been true :)

My post from 2 days ago has a link to matches played by strong players against computers handicapped in various ways, usually by removing a pawn.  In effect, that eliminates the opening book.  The humans still lost though one master won with knight odds.

Please enlighten me!

Why have computers been given an exemption from the "touch piece - move piece" rule ?

If you touch it you move it, if you don't touch it, you don't move it

With due respect, you know nothing about engines and computer chess.

ICCF is filled to the brim with patzers who have super-computers, and yet they lose all the time against strong competition.

Why? I will let you think about it.