Can Houdini 3 be beaten?

Why is returning to the "old rules" limiting it? According to GM Lev Alburt if we were to return to the old rules, 40 moves followed by adjournment, humans could beat computers. Why is this a limitation?

When computers were unbeatable at tic tac toe, humanity lost a  little bit. When computers were unbeatable at checkers, humanity lost a little bit of humanity. When computers became World Champion at chess we lost a little bit of humanity.

When Watson became Jeopardy Champion we saw the same computer friendly rules that allowed computers to become world champion in chess. Watson, could, in a split second, ring in on its answers winning not because it was more knowledgeable butr because it was allowed the mechanical advantage of ringing the buzzer faster. Was this a fair contest or was it stacked in Watson's favor?

Every time a computer betters us in some intellectual pursuit we lose a little humanity. If you want to sell chess to the general population, then regaining human supremacy at chess will make chess the most popular game of all time.

What does "run it in a 386 or 486?" mean?

"Why is returning to the "old rules" limiting it? According to GM Lev Alburt if we were to return to the old rules, 40 moves followed by adjournment, humans could beat computers. Why is this a limitation?"

I'm not sure how anyone can see GMs playing half a game, followed by team/engine follow ups a benefit.

"Every time a computer betters us in some intellectual pursuit we lose a little humanity. If you want to sell chess to the general population, then regaining human supremacy at chess will make chess the most popular game of all time."

The general population doesn't even know Houdini exists. Whether a top GM can beat it has very little impact (read: no impact) on the popularity of chess.

BTW why isn't creating a computer that can beat top players a human achievement rather than a threat to humanity?

Oh my god this is stupid.

What is missing in this discussion is what is good for chess professionals? If pros were to beat computers this would have phenomenal appeal to the average person on the street. We tend to believe that once a computer achieves supremacy in some intellectual discipline like chess, they will become permanent champion in that discipline.

What if humans began to beat the strongest computers? Wouldn't this make news world wide? A phenomenal amount of money would flow into chess to televise matches between humans and computers. Your average GM would be a millionaire. Chess professionals would make as much money as football, basketball, baseball and golf pros. Your "average" IM like Pfren could make a good living either playing on the semipro circuit or giving chess lessons for $500-$1000/hour. Your typical master would make $100/hour giving chess lessons and even the average B player could give chess lessons for at least minimum wage.

Having humans beat computers with minor rules changes may not seem "fair" but to the average man on the street all they are going to care about is that humans are beating computers. They are not going  to care about the rules changes.

Overnight chess would go from an esoteric exercise to one that will be the subject of countless doctoral theses and other research to complement the dramatic rise in its popularity. We can also tie chess to proficiency in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, STEM; chess may be a pathway out of poverty for those in the inner cities. Instead of trying to become the best basketball player in the world, they might strive to become the best chess player in the world. If they fail, they may become much better at STEM subjects as a residual benefit.

I predict that chess may be a great way to fight autism, dementia and alzheimer's disease.

"What is missing in this discussion is what is good for chess professionals? If pros were to beat computers this would have phenomenal appeal to the average person on the street."

Go 20 random people on the street and ask them who would win between Houdini and Magnus Carlsen.

After it's clear they have no idea, ask if they know who Houdini or Carlsen are.

The rest of your post makes me wonder what planet you're on.

No one knows who Houdini or Carlsen are, but they do know that computers are able to beat the top Jeopardy players. Having top professionals beat computers in televised matches will make chess professionals a huge amount of money. What you forget is that everyone who watches the chess matches will have a World Class laptop following each move, guessing at the next move and improving on play for both sides. This is true whether you are a class player or a GM. Chess will have  phenomenal spectator appeal in matches of humans versus computers---provided that humans win. That is why it is critical to write rules favorable to humans.

What you forget is that most of the population has no interest in watching chess on TV and wont be guessing the moves because there are very few people who understand what's going on.

It doesn't have phenomenal spectator appeal, and never will.

We have watched as computers climb their way up through blue collar jobs replacing workers on assembly lines. Now they are climbing their way up white collar jobs displacing millions of workers. We have reconciled ourselves into believing of the inevitable rise of computers and the end of human intellectual dominance. Some would argue that humans still program computers so isn't that just another type of human supremacy? What happens when computers program themselves to get good at chess and don't need human programmers?

If you want to bring  billions of dollars into chess, then find players who can beat computers at chess. They may not even be Masters. I remember seeing the only game in a recent human/computer contest where the human won. He had eight (!) pawns on the  fourth rank. How he got the position I don't know, but clearly he was playing an anti-computer school of chess similar to what I played against Houdini in the  Wilkes-Barre. This is the only thing we need to have spectacular spectator appeal.

You are too focused on America. Do you think Russia, China and India find chess interesting and be willing to support it?

No

"You are too focused on America. Do you think Russia, China and India find chess interesting and be willing to support it?"

I've not mentioned America, and am not from there.

As baffling as your other conclusions.

Pfren,

Here's another endgame where White has practical chances to win due to Black's compromised pawn structure, but it is a BOC ending which is tough to win even with an extra pawn. Here Black has material equality.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6. c3 b5 7. Bf1 Nxd5 8.cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O Rb8 11. Bc6 exd4 12. d3 Qf5 13. Re1 Be6 14. Nd2 Qxd3 15. Nb3 Qxd1 16. Rxd1 Kc8 17. Nxd4 g6 18. Bd2 Bc5 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Rac1 Bd6 21. Rc2 Nb4 22. Bxb4 Rxb4 23. g3 *

America could have won the Cold War in the 1950's if instead of MAD the Pentagon had invested $100 million training the top US Grandmasters like Sammy Reshevsky, Larry Evans, Arnold Denker, Isaac Kashdan, Harry Golumbeck to become top professionals. What the Pentagon never understood was that the Soviet Union indoctrinated their populace with the belief that because they were the top chess professionals in the world and were intellectually superior to the US. Our military never understood that chess is a war game and that we could have fought a proxy war over the chess board and not Korea.

Once a human beats a computer at chess and that a contest between computers and humans is not a foregone conclusion here is a format for TV  that might interest sponsors. Two games, one with White one with Black played by two GM's in consultation in a 10 minute game against Houdini or Komodo. One GM can chat with the commentator between moves and suggest what strategies they will employ and what tactics they see.

Here is the fourth game in the Fritz. As you can see in this double Rook ending a pawn up White has realistic winning chances so maybe Black should play 13...Nf6 keeping Queens on the board and steering for complications.

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nd4 6. c3 b5 7. Bf1 Nxd5 8.cxd4 Qxg5 9. Bxb5+ Kd8 10. O-O Rb8 11. Bc6 exd4 12. d3 Qf5 13. Re1 Be6 14. Nd2 Qxd3 15. Nf3 Qxd1 16. Rxd1 Bd6 17. Nxd4 Kc8 18. g3 Rb6 19. Nxe6 fxe6 20. Bxd5 exd5 21. Rxd5 Re8 22. Kf1 Re5 23. Rd3 Reb5 24. Be3 Ra6 25. Bd4 Be5 26. Bxe5 Rxe5 27. h4 h6 28. Rd2 g5 29. hxg5 hxg5 30. Kg2 Rd6 31. Rc2 Kb7 32. Rh1 c6 33.b3 Re4 34. Kf3 Red4 35. Rh5 g4+ 36. Kg2 Kb6 37. Rhc5 * +/-

The strengh of a chess program(software) also depends on the hardware I think IBM had a very big machines to run Deep Blue againt Kasparov

You live in a dream world of "no". The popular perception of chess is two old guys sitting on a park bench which is about as exciting as watching moss grow. "No one" has seen Nakamuru play bullet chess. The average person has no idea how exciting blitz chess can be. They don't realize that some chess professionals can play high quality chess making several moves in one second. When you combine blitz chess, with the ability of spectators to follow games on their laptops, with the ability of top professionals to beat computers you have a sure fire recipe for chess to have spectacular spectator appeal. With spectator appeal you have sponsors, with sponsors, you have big money, with big money, even IM's will make a living at chess.

You think someone who doesn't play would be excited by bullet chess?

As example Deep Blue, (the chess) was "run by" this (high size, to almost the top of the room as can be seen)

Absolutely wrong. Houdini plays the endings very poorly, factly most of my 2400 correspondence rating comes out of winning equal endgames. The engine is pretty good at tactics, but it also has weaknesses, the biggest one being endgame play. The most consistent endgame player between engines is Stockfish, but still its play is far from "perfect".