I'm going to issue a challenge to the manufacturer of Houdini 3 that I can win or draw against Houdini 3 in at least 5 out of 20 games. I will consult with a local expert in the match. The stakes will be $1000. The games will be posted on this thread.
Shouldn't be a problem. I assume this "local expert" is Komodo? Or perhaps Stockfish.
4.Ng5? moving the same piece twice. Either castle or move another piece.
?
Castling would be a blunder, not 4. Ng5, a book line which wins a pawn by force, for some positional compensation.
It is not a forced win of a pawn
Pull the plug
I'm going to issue a challenge to the manufacturer of Houdini 3 that I can win or draw against Houdini 3 in at least 5 out of 20 games. I will consult with a local expert in the match. The stakes will be $1000. The games will be posted on this thread.
Shouldn't be a problem. I assume this "local expert" is Komodo? Or perhaps Stockfish.
No---he is a tournament director and an attorney; I'll have him sign an affidavit validating the results
I'm going to issue a challenge to the manufacturer of Houdini 3 that I can win or draw against Houdini 3 in at least 5 out of 20 games. I will consult with a local expert in the match. The stakes will be $1000. The games will be posted on this thread.
Shouldn't be a problem. I assume this "local expert" is Komodo? Or perhaps Stockfish.
No---he is a tournament director and an attorney; I'll have him sign an affidavit validating the results
I'm sympathetic to your cause. That being said, this is very unlikely to happen. The war between human and machine is long over, we lost. The engines from 8 years ago are still stronger than today's best human players. I noticed that your OTB rating puts you in class b range. With respect sir, how can you expect to hold Houdini 3 if local experts and 1st Category players are too much to handle? I'm 2075 uscf and my games with the "weak" engines (Rybka etc..) are ridiculously one sided. Don't get me wrong, your idea is cool. Just don't see this plot working out.
I'm going to issue a challenge to the manufacturer of Houdini 3 that I can win or draw against Houdini 3 in at least 5 out of 20 games. I will consult with a local expert in the match. The stakes will be $1000. The games will be posted on this thread.
Shouldn't be a problem. I assume this "local expert" is Komodo? Or perhaps Stockfish.
No---he is a tournament director and an attorney; I'll have him sign an affidavit validating the results
I'm sympathetic to your cause. That being said, this is very unlikely to happen. The war between human and machine is long over, we lost. The engines from 8 years ago are still stronger than today's best human players. I noticed that your OTB rating puts you in class b range. With respect sir, how can you expect to hold Houdini 3 if local experts and 1st Category players are too much to handle? I'm 2075 uscf and my games with the "weak" engines (Rybka etc..) are ridiculously one sided. Don't get me wrong, your idea is cool. Just don't see this plot working out.
Not only can I draw Houdini, if it plays the wrong opening, I can crush it. Here Black is completely busted but I mishandled the coup de grace; the final position is +-
Sloughter it's not a game until you finish it, stop posting unfinished games and adjudicating them yourself, play them out, get a result then post them.
I'm pretty sure the creator of Houdini has better things to do than accept challenges from everybody that asks, but if you played a 20-game match, it would be 20-0, if Magnus Carlsen played a 20-game match it would also be 20-0 most likely, maybe he could draw it in 1, and Carlsen is a god.
You're delusional.
Sloughter it's not a game until you finish it, stop posting unfinished games and adjudicating them yourself, play them out, get a result then post them.
I'm pretty sure the creator of Houdini has better things to do than accept challenges from everybody that asks, but if you played a 20-game match, it would be 20-0, if Magnus Carlsen played a 20-game match it would also be 20-0 most likely, maybe he could draw it in 1, and Carlsen is a god.
You're delusional.
This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Where is your refutation of my game? Okay---I'll play out the game.
I don't get it, I didn't even mention your game, just told you to, in general, stop posting unfinished games, like with the "drawn" games, where Houdini "offered a draw" which it can't do, in those games I am absolutely sure that you're just pressing adjudicate draw and then posting them saying you drew.
Btw in that game, half of those moves are ones that Houdini 3 considers inferior, which means either all of it was from a bad opening book, or you're not playing Houdini.
Sloughter it's not a game until you finish it, stop posting unfinished games and adjudicating them yourself, play them out, get a result then post them.
I'm pretty sure the creator of Houdini has better things to do than accept challenges from everybody that asks, but if you played a 20-game match, it would be 20-0, if Magnus Carlsen played a 20-game match it would also be 20-0 most likely, maybe he could draw it in 1, and Carlsen is a god.
You're delusional.
My Houdini plays "book" in every opening; what you may not realize is that some of these book lines lead to clearly winning positions for me before I even have to think. For example, it just loses a pawn for no compensation in the Ulvestad. It also plays book in the main line of the Two Knights' Defense that leads to a clear advantage for White (last time I played this line I was two pawns up and Houdini had no counterplay) so you have to be aware that programmers have relied too much on "human" book without vetting some of these lines with a strong computer before inputting them.
So to summarize this thread, you are forcing Houdini to play 'losing' book lines, or either just using a very bad book. Then you adjudicate the position as a win at the end of the book line.
All this against a copy of Houdini that is probably configured to match the player's own strength or in some way limited. So to answer the original question, can Houdini 3 be beaten given these conditions? The answer is yes.
Don't get me wrong I hope your challenge is ahead on the condition that it should be held on a chess server and open to spectators. I would watch such a match between a full-strength Houdini and any human brave enough to challenge it.
So to summarize this thread, you are forcing Houdini to play 'losing' book lines, or either just using a very bad book. Then you adjudicate the position as a win at the end of the book line.
All this against a copy of Houdini that is probably configured to match the player's own strength or in some way limited. So to answer the original question, can Houdini 3 be beaten given these conditions? The answer is yes.
Don't get me wrong I hope your challenge is ahead on the condition that it should be held on a chess server and open to spectators. I would watch such a match between a full-strength Houdini and any human brave enough to challenge it.
I don't "force" Houdini to play any lines; it chooses its own lines. I have already got confirmation from the sales representative at Chess King that he will share any draws I get with the manufacturer; I am not going to jump through hoops to satisfy post members.
I just ordered Houdini 3 Pro version that is current as of June 2013; once I download the program, I'll post the draws. You can either believe or disbelieve. Now that I have access to the manufacturer there is no need for me convince post members that I am "really playing against Houdini 3 Pro version."
Sloughter it's not a game until you finish it, stop posting unfinished games and adjudicating them yourself, play them out, get a result then post them.
I'm pretty sure the creator of Houdini has better things to do than accept challenges from everybody that asks, but if you played a 20-game match, it would be 20-0, if Magnus Carlsen played a 20-game match it would also be 20-0 most likely, maybe he could draw it in 1, and Carlsen is a god.
You're delusional.
I play extremely aggressively against Houdini 3. It doesn't know if I am a 1300 player or a 3300 player; it only evaluates the position on the board. Obviously a 3300 human player would not accept the draw by repetition, but Houdini doesn't like its position after 8.f4 so it takes the draw. I think Carlsen could draw this position :)
Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. 10.Nxe4 wins a pawn with a clear advantage for black. STOP THIS.
Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. 10.Nxe4 wins a pawn with a clear advantage for black. STOP THIS.
My Houdini clearly has a defect; I have ordered Chess King's Houdini 3 Pro current as of June 2013
Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. 10.Nxe4 wins a pawn with a clear advantage for black. STOP THIS.
My Houdini missed 9.Nf5 with a clear advantage e.g. Qxb2 10.Nxe7ch Kh8 11.Bd4 +/-
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.
Rules of Behavior
Chess.com is a friendly community. The following behavior is prohibited and can result in your being kicked or banned:
Cheating
Accusations of cheating (naming/shaming)
Offensive/vulgar language/toilet humor
Personal attacks
Spamming (spammy pointless/distracting posts/lettering)
Advertising and/or promoting other websites
Religious or political topics in Main Hall
Racism
Discussion of illegal activities (guns/drugs, etc)
Posting of any external links
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.
Rules of Behavior
Chess.com is a friendly community. The following behavior is prohibited and can result in your being kicked or banned:
Cheating
Accusations of cheating (naming/shaming)
Offensive/vulgar language/toilet humor
Personal attacks
Spamming (spammy pointless/distracting posts/lettering)
Advertising and/or promoting other websites
Religious or political topics in Main Hall
Racism
Discussion of illegal activities (guns/drugs, etc)
Posting of any external links
Personal attacks are prohibited; why don't you go after post members who launch personal attacks.
I'm going to issue a challenge to the manufacturer of Houdini 3 that I can win or draw against Houdini 3 in at least 5 out of 20 games. I will consult with a local expert in the match. The stakes will be $1000. The games will be posted on this thread.
OTB or online?
I'm going to have a local expert who is a tournament director come to my house to validate the result; he is also an expert so he can draw endgames I would lose. He is an attorney and I'll have him sign an affidavit that I do not have sight of either the analysis or evaluations, only sight of the time. He will also stipulate that Houdini chose its own openings.
I'll post the games on this thread.