Said otherwise, you are picking Houdini's moves (because your claim of "roughly equal" is your lousy analysis).
So, you can be beaten by yourself. Great find.
sloughterchess do you understand idiot that Houdini does not possess an opening book? I repeat myself, play against Houdini' first moves or load a proper opening book and see what happens, then update me...
Well, this thread has been useful to me in one way...It has confirmed that my decision to NOT buy the Chess King GUI was the correct one. Any GUI that assumes you only want to use one engine and one opening book is not a GUI that I'd ever want to own.
For the record, it is possible to use other engines, but the software isn't set up to allow you to do it. You'd have to either manually edit some xml file or resort to renaming engine files to fool the program. And the program does not allow you to install any other opening books - You're stuck with the one that comes with the program. One interesting question that hasn't been addressed yet is whether the Chess King GUI allows you to disable the CK opening book and let Houdini play its own moves from Move 1.
sloughterchess do you understand idiot that Houdini does not possess an opening book? I repeat myself, play against Houdini' first moves or load a proper opening book and see what happens, then update me...
Well, this thread has been useful to me in one way...It has confirmed that my decision to NOT buy the Chess King GUI was the correct one. Any GUI that assumes you only want to use one engine and one opening book is not a GUI that I'd ever want to own.
For the record, it is possible to use other engines, but the software isn't set up to allow you to do it. You'd have to either manually edit some xml file or resort to renaming engine files to fool the program. And the program does not allow you to install any other opening books - You're stuck with the one that comes with the program. One interesting question that hasn't been addressed yet is whether the Chess King GUI allows you to disable the CK opening book and let Houdini play its own moves from Move 1.
One way around the Pro's opening book is to do what I did in the previous game i.e. set up a known book position generally believed to be "playable" by top professionals or by on line members.
This is a major innovation in the Fried Liver and is the most serious attempt at a refutation of 5...Nxd5. The idea 10
.d4 is obvious and strong; Black never equalized.
This is a major innovation in the Fried Liver and is the most serious attempt at a refutation of 5...Nxd5. The idea 10.d4 is obvious and strong; Black never equalized.
Sorry, this is just more crapola from your "Chess Krap" program. Your 10.d4 "major innovation" is completely busted by 10...Kd7 (eval of -0.62). 10...Kf7 is also good. Your "Pro's" selection of 10...Qd6 results in an eval of +0.71, which is a swing for the worse of 1.33 pawns.
If you're not going to ditch that crappy program, at least learn how to analyze your games so you can avoid spewing complete crap like this "innovation". Frankly, I've wasted far too much time poking holes in all of these bogus games. Get a real program and learn how to use it, and then I'll think about taking your posts seriously. Until then, it's "Vaya con dios."
The computer is clearly flawed in the opening; while some games are suspect when I submitted a variety of games to GM Alburt where its openings are not suspect, it plays well. Right now, when it plays something instantly, I'll have to vet the move (as I should have done here).
I've been burned by the Pro's opening book for the last time; I'll wait to post games until I find out why it constantly makes losing moves in the opening. There must be some kind of algorithm that randomly forces the pro to make its choices from a variety of legal moves.
But it begs the question---if the opening "book" of the Pro is not thorough enough to get the computer into a playable middlegame, this could indicate that opening theory will be its Achilles Heel and the Achilles Heel of all programs. Sooner or later the computer will have to leave its opening book which may cause the computer to rearrange its pieces to its "liking".
What EscherehcsE says is true, H3 never considers Qd6, it considers 10... Kf7 for one second and then change his mind to 10... Kd7 and then it keeps its opinion (until depth 20 at least) and it gives black a clear advantage.
This is a major innovation in the Fried Liver and is the most serious attempt at a refutation of 5...Nxd5. The idea 10.d4 is obvious and strong; Black never equalized.
Sorry, this is just more crapola from your "Chess Krap" program. Your 10.d4 "major innovation" is completely busted by 10...Kd7 (eval of -0.62). 10...Kf7 is also good. Your "Pro's" selection of 10...Qd6 results in an eval of +0.71, which is a swing for the worse of 1.33 pawns.
If you're not going to ditch that crappy program, at least learn how to analyze your games so you can avoid spewing complete crap like this "innovation". Frankly, I've wasted far too much time poking holes in all of these bogus games. Get a real program and learn how to use it, and then I'll think about taking your posts seriously. Until then, it's "Vaya con dios."
The Pro, by coincidence played this variation with White and was clearly surprised by Kd7. I didn't realize I had set the time control to a 10 minute game until I glanced at the clock and had 8 minutes left to the computer's 3 minutes. Black had a slight advantage but hung a pawn for no compensation, but the the Pro lost on time.
BREAKING NEWS! Houdini caught cheating in nTCEC
In his last announcement, nTCEC chess engines competition’s director shocked the chess world by depriving Houdini 3 from its nTCEC crown due to cheating by using sloughterchess assistance. The director explains in details: "before the superfinal against Stockfish, Dr. Houdart asked me to modify the engine slightly to fix some bugs; I accepted that and the engine was modified. However, after the superfinal I tried to figure out the differences between the two versions only to find that the second one connects to a certain site on the internet! And after further investigations I found that site to be personal and belongs to chess.com member sloughterchess, the only human player who can beat all engines fairly easily. This made me believe that Houdini was getting help from sloughterchess throughout the superfinal, then I went on to ask Dr. Houdart about it who indeed has confirmed my suspicions and said that he paid him 1000$ for each game he helps Houdini in, and that the help was only in some critical games (Houdini won all of these). Given that sloughterchess is much stronger than Houdini this is a crystal-clear cheating case so I decided to cancel Houdini's result and declare Stockfish as the champion, and to avoid such accident, I decided to use the old version of Houdini 3 and deny the internet access in upcoming seasons"
Besides that, the second nTCEC season has just started with Stockfish looking to defend its title and Houdini trying to show that it can win even without outside help. It can be followed here:
http://tcec.chessdom.com/live.php
This gets my vote for the funniest post of the month 
The opening in the above game was suggested as a true test of Houdini's ability by GM Roman Dzindzichasvili. He suggested I test both 6...e6 and 6...e5.
White had a slight plus in the middlegame, but a draw seems likely.
Neither white nor black have done correct or best moves after the opening (from move 6,indeed) therefore SHUT UP you and the GM (if he is really guilty) with all due respect. That kind of play can not be Houdini 3. They are loser' moves like you Slou...a liar psychotic loser. The entire forum laughs at you.
Houdini 3 and Houdini 3 Pro play junk in the opening so I have decided to try Rykba 4 Extreme (rated at 3150 according to the manufacturer); from my preliminary play, it plays the openings incomparably better than either Houdini's so I will use it from now on.
Yeah sure sure, so from today the new crap will be that you are able to beat Rybka 4. If not for me obviously, or for all of us, please stop it, at least for the chess' sake.
If you weren't such an idiot you'd stop posting messages.
Yes I am a huge idiot, because I am still posting messages (maybe the last one) when I know for sure that you are a crazy arrogant troll who understands nothing about the game and the world of chess as your speech and statistics show.
Yes you are the village idiot. Was it a natural tendency, did you pass a test or did you train for your idiotic rants?
Mystery solved:
Hi Rich,
For the moment it seems that Houdini 3 and Houdini 3 Pro have been created for analysis to get the very best possible move in any analyzed position, but that it was not considered needed to make the play mode take systematically the first line of Houdini 3's analysis as its move each time. As everybody seems to point out, when you play against Houdini 3 at max level and then a few minutes later analyze the game, you can see it did not play the best moves it itself recommends. That's obvious from the very first game played.
That's strange to me and so I have asked why that is, and how hard it would be to make the maximum playing mode "simply" be the first line of the analysis of each move. Of course some kind of opening has to be included to save analysis time, maybe that's the problem. Maybe it's not as simple as it sounds.
My sincerest apologies to post members; it never occurred to me that the manufacturer of Houdini 3 and the Pro would program the computer to play junk in play mode.
My sincerest apologies to post members; it never occurred to me that the manufacturer of Houdini 3 and the Pro would program the computer to play junk in play mode.
Houdini works well, within its inherent limitations.
I could not expect the author of Houdini to program YOU, or pretty much address every case of the PEBKAC syndrome effectively. He probably thinks that the usage manual should suffice, but alas, it does not seem being the case here...
I didn't get a manual and Houdart won't return my e-mail (well, I did ask him several off topic questions )
I feel your pain, bro. To find the online manual, I actually had to Google "Houdini chess engine manual"!
Man, am I ever exhausted! I'm going to have to take a sabbatical leave now. 
P.S. Thanks pfren, I learned a new acronymn! PEBKAC!
Mystery solved:
Hi Rich,
For the moment it seems that Houdini 3 and Houdini 3 Pro have been created for analysis to get the very best possible move in any analyzed position, but that it was not considered needed to make the play mode take systematically the first line of Houdini 3's analysis as its move each time. As everybody seems to point out, when you play against Houdini 3 at max level and then a few minutes later analyze the game, you can see it did not play the best moves it itself recommends. That's obvious from the very first game played.
That's strange to me and so I have asked why that is, and how hard it would be to make the maximum playing mode "simply" be the first line of the analysis of each move. Of course some kind of opening has to be included to save analysis time, maybe that's the problem. Maybe it's not as simple as it sounds.
@sloughterchess,
I'm assuming that this is communication to you from a Chess King representative? The information is a bit odd, as it seems to imply that the problem originates with the Houdini engine and not the Chess King GUI. However, this might just be due to the rep's ignorance of the issues, or even willful misdirection (not wanting to 'fess up - let's just keep obfuscating the facts, etc.). I seriously doubt that the problem comes from the engine itself, unless Houdart went to the trouble of making a special Houdini version just for Chess King. (I would be surprised if he did that.)
Anyway, I would be interested in knowing the results of the investigation and how Chess King decides to resolve the problem.
Would you please read the previous posts? I can't let Houdini pick its own openings, it is often dead lost by move 10 so I have decided to restrict myself to the main line of known openings where neither Black or White are winning so I am bracketing the opening choices between +/= to =/+. In this Fried Liver Black is required to "choose" the main line as determined by Correspondence World Champion Yakov Estrin and echoed by Jon Edwards in an article he wrote for Chess Life.
White had no trouble holding this ending with outside connected passed pawns versus a Knight.