Mr Slaughterchess,
My question is,if you succeeded to beat Houdini, you just try to compete in FIDE events. Why do you not try.
Love
Can Houdini 3 be beaten?
Sort:
Aug 3, 2013
0
#103
Yep, we're definitely in the Twilight Zone here.
I'll concede any claim of the OP on opening theory. I'm just not interested in that. However, one thing the OP has never discussed is how he's able to have such a good record against Houdini once the game leaves opening book theory. Until the OP successfully explains that, I'll continue to ignore anything he posts.
sloughterchess wrote:
One of the misconceptions of post members is that my Houdini is playing poorly, that its choices are sketchy,and, somehow despite my repeated assurances it is playing at a high level I am mistaken.
To those who are in doubt, here is the game from #88, with analysis from Irontigri which performs at a peak rating of (at best) 2100 (hence largely inferior to Houdini) :
Irontiger wrote:
sloughterchess wrote:
One of the misconceptions of post members is that my Houdini is playing poorly, that its choices are sketchy,and, somehow despite my repeated assurances it is playing at a high level I am mistaken.
To those who are in doubt, here is the game from #88, with analysis from Irontigri which performs at a peak rating of (at best) 2100 (hence largely inferior to Houdini) :
If you were familiar with book, you would know that White will be lucky to draw with your 8.Be2: 8.Bd3 is book. Your suggestion that Black's ninth move is awarded a ?! is correct, but not for the reasons you give. It is book.
It took Roman's access to Komodo and a much stronger Houdini 3 than mine to show that Black should play g6, not h6 for the very reason this game demonstrates i.e. it prevents my Bf5 with advantage.
Also, most players when faced with Ne4 do not play Nxe4, they play Nd5---again, this is book.
johnsmithson wrote:
I dunno about that analysis there. I think black's moves were pretty strong. There is some different story here than Houdini not working.
Thank you!
I thought I stood better in the opening but got hammered in the early middlegame---a fairly typical win by Houdini and indicative of its true playing strength:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. c4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Be2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Nc2 b6 10. Ne3 Nd7 11. f4 Bb7 12. Bf3 a6 13. a4 Qc7 14. Rf2 Nc5 15. b3 Rac8 16. Bb2 Nb4 17. Rd2 d5 18. cxd5 Qxf4 19. Nf1 Rfd8 -+
Aug 3, 2013
0
#108
Irontiger wrote:
sloughterchess wrote:
One of the misconceptions of post members is that my Houdini is playing poorly, that its choices are sketchy,and, somehow despite my repeated assurances it is playing at a high level I am mistaken.
To those who are in doubt, here is the game from #88, with analysis from Irontigri which performs at a peak rating of (at best) 2100 (hence largely inferior to Houdini) :
In move 9, Houdini 3 considers 9... h6 at depth 20, but then changes to 9... O-O and keeps that choice until depth 22. If it takes less than 2 minutes in my i3 laptop, it should take seconds in your i7.
In move 11th at depth 19, Houdini 3 chooses 11...O-O with the followup 12... Bh4, he doesn´t consider 12... g6.
In move 12, up to depth 21, Houdini 3 never considers 12... g6 it´s top choice.
In move 15, up to depth 21, Houdini 3 never chooses 15... Re8 as his top choice.
Aug 3, 2013
0
#109
A year from now, sloughterchess is going to log in and tell us, "Sorry guys, I had Houdini set to 1600 elo and didn't notice." 
Aug 3, 2013
0
#110
I've played probably 1000 games against Houdini, since I like to learn openings with it, I'm 0-1000 against it. I think Carlsen stands a decent chance of winning 1 game out of 100 against it. He can certainly draw it. I'm eagerly awaiting the day a 2700+ plays it in a match.
I leave it to others to calculate my performance rating. I'll post on line all my games against Houdini like this one. I'll alternate White and Black, allow Houdini to pick its own openings and not look either at its evaluation or moves. Here in a slightly worse position, I blundered and lost quickly. In the opening I had a slight plus:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. dxc5 Qa5+ 5. Qd2! (i intend to follow with Qe3 gaining a tempo) Qxc5 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Qe3 Qxe3+ 8. Bxe3 Bd7 9. a3 (so I can play Bd3 without worring about Nb4) Ng4 10. Bd2 Rc8 11. h3 Nge5 12. Be2 Nxf3+ 13. Bxf3 Nd4 14.Bd1 g6 15. Rc1! (White needs to be able to move either his Knight or Bishop) f5! (Until Houdini played this, I thought i was better) 16. f3 Bg7 17. Be2 fxe4 18. fxe4 Nxe2 19. Kxe2 b6 20. Nd1?? (i was intending Bc3, but overlooked the simple) Bb5+ 21. Ke1 Be5 22. Be3 Bc6 23. Nf2 Bxb2 0-1
I thought I was equal after 6...Na6, but was soon proven wrong:
Houdini-Moody
1. Nf3 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c5 4. O-O g6 5. c3 Bg7 6. d4 Na6 7. Na3 O-O 8. Nb5 Qb6 9. a4 c4 10. b3 cxb3 11. Qxb3+ Qe6 12. c4 Qf7 13. Ne5 Qe8 14. c5+ Kh8 15.Rb1 Ne4 16. Bxe4 Bxe5 17. dxe5 fxe4 18. Bh6 1-0
Moody-Houdini Match August 2013
White had a slight plus in the opening but missed the strength of 13...Na4
1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 e5 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. dxe5 dxe5 6. a3 Bd6 7. Bc4 Qe7 8.h3 c6 9. Qe2 b5 10. Ba2 O-O 11. Bg5 Nc5 12. Bxf6 Qxf6 13. Nb1? Na4 14. c3 Qg6 15. Kf1 a5 16. Kg1 Qh6 17. Qc2 Rd8 18. Nbd2 Nc5 19. b4 Ne6 20. Re1 axb4 21.axb4 Nf4 22. Rh2 Bc7 0-1
Houdini-Moody Match August 2013
This was potentially "drawable". Maybe passive defense would have held.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Bd3 O-O 6. Nge2 e5 7. d5 Na6 8. O-O Bd7 9. Bc2 c5 10. a3 Nc7 11. b4 b6 12. Qd3 Nfe8 13. Rb1 f5?! 14. exf5 Bxf5 15.Qd1 Bxc2 16. Qxc2 Nf6 17. bxc5 bxc5 18. Bg5! (The winning move) Qd7 19. Bxf6 Bxf6 20. Rb7 Rfb8 21.Rfb1 Qc8 22. Qb3 Rxb7 23. Qxb7 Qxb7 24. Rxb7 Rc8 25. Rxa7 1-0
yes he can be beaten easily if we would put in begginer mode
sloughterchess wrote:
diablo09 wrote:
sloughterchess wrote:
diablo09 wrote:
sloughterchess = next 2800+++ player:)
Iam wondering when i checked your so called games.. Its either an engine to engine game using the 4 Knight opening or your playing an engine much weaker than houdini3 cause even on my Houdini 1.5 some moves which played by "Houdini3" are really dubious and not even on his top 5 list.. And btw what do you really want to prove in here? I know that most GM would find it hard to draw Houdini even on a decent laptop even with 4 Knights, and even with odds and that yes Houdini can be beaten not by human logic but by sheer brute force calculation that only an engine can do.. Maybe 1 or 2 people would take side with you.. but most of those here will mock you for its really hard to belive you can draw much less win against Houdini when even top GM cannot. Its a nomal human behavior to boast, so other will be jealous.. But when all evidence points the other way around.. It will just make u stupid. Not trying to offend you.. But maan common..
I had a computer expert design the computer with the expressed purpose of getting optimum performance of Houdini 3. Roman, who uses Houdini 3 running on 6 processors calls my Houdini "baby Houdini", but when I told him my system's qualitites i.e. i7 CPU Socket 1155, 4GB memory, 500GB hard drive, he said that this was "good". So don't try to tell me my Houdini is not performing at a high level.
lol now this is funny i did not mention that your Houdini is not performing on high level what im telling you is that either its an engine versus engine match or its not Houdini you had won against. Can you give the computers evaluation log that is saved on your games with Houdini?? That would settle the issue
I suggest you look at post 104 where I played the 6.Bc4 variation of the Wilkes-Barre/Traxler against Houdini 3. If it is an engine versus engine match, how do you account for the fact that many of White's choices were criticized by Houdini? Houdini thought it was doing well when I had an advantage of +/-.
If it were an engine versus engine match, don't you think the engine would consistently choose moves the engine thought were good? Show me one engine that would choose my 15.b3, for example. Houdini criticized me for 17.c3, yet it is the best move.
I told post members I would look at the evaluation when playing the games and was told I was cheating so I stopped looking at the evaluation and drew something like 5 games in the past 36 hours.
I have already jumped through hoops to satisfy my critics. I was criticized legitimately for relying on a laptop with inadequate software to run Houdini 3 at a desired level, so I took the box with the desired systems requirement to a computer expert and asked him to design a computer to meet the systems' requirement on the box so he provided me with the i7 CPU Socket 1155 4GB memory 500GB harddrive.
Show me anywhere that this is an inadequate software arrangement to run Houdini 3 at the level suggested by the manufacturer.
You can demand anything you like, but your request is ridiculous.
can u post your games something like this
This shows the engines evaluation and alternate moves.. And to answer you Yes Houdini does not produce the best evaluation "sometimes" what about the other games where Houdini just played some really poor moves iam asking you to post your games this way so we can check your Houdinis evaluation compare to our as its really obvious its not Houdini moves you had post.. Its not worth my time to check all of youre games as im convinced the few i had seen and check with my Houdini 1.5 that its really not Houdini in its full strenght.. If its ridiculous to ask to post youre games that way and im sure its still saved on the program.. Youre a hopeless cause.
Moody-Houdini 3 Match August 2013
I will be getting a lesson on how to use ChessBase at the end of August. It may be possible for me to do as you suggest; right now I don't know how to do it.
Book for Houdini is a losing continuation in the Ulvestad. While I can draw routinely, I have never been able to win.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5 6. Bf1 h6 7. Nf3 Nd4 8.Nxd4 exd4 9. Bxb5+ Bd7 10. Bxd7+ Qxd7 11. c4 dxc3 12. dxc3 Nxd5 13. O-O Be7 14.Qd4 O-O 15. c4 Nf6 16. Qxd7 Nxd7 17. Nc3 c6 18. Rd1 Rfd8 19. Be3 Bf6 20. Bd4 Ne5 21. Kf1 c5 22. Bxc5 Nxc4 23. Rxd8+ Rxd8 24. Rd1 Rc8 25. Ne4 Bxb2 26. Bxa7 Re8 27. Nd2 Na3 28. Nb3 Ra8 29. Bd4 Nc4 30. Bxb2 Nxb2 31. Rd2 Na4 32. Rc2 Nb6 33. Ke2 Nd5 34. Nc1 g5 35. g3 Kg7 36. Rc4 Kf6 37. h4 Ke5 38. hxg5 hxg5 39. Nd3+ Kf5 40. Nc1 Ke5 41. Nd3+ Kf5 42. Nc1 Ke5 1/2-1/2
The only reason I am only 1/2 out of five games is that I am playing both colors now instead of all Whites.
Aug 4, 2013
0
#118
There's a 0% chance that that was Houdini you drew there. Okay sloughter? 0%.
thecheesykid wrote:
There's a 0% chance that that was Houdini you drew there. Okay sloughter? 0%.
i'm not sure about 0% but it is very unlikely. still, keep trying
Aug 4, 2013
0
#120
ChessSlimShady wrote:
thecheesykid wrote:
There's a 0% chance that that was Houdini you drew there. Okay sloughter? 0%.
i'm not sure about 0% but it is very unlikely. still, keep trying
Nope, it's 0%, because having checked the game with Houdini it's an absolute certainty that he's not playing even a decent 2000 strength player, let alone something with 3300 that has had no official recorded human victory.
I don't know if the OP is trying to fool us, or is just a little deluded, but either way it's getting tiring
One of the misconceptions of post members is that my Houdini is playing poorly, that its choices are sketchy,and, somehow despite my repeated assurances it is playing at a high level I am mistaken. I lose an average of 3 games for each draw. Here is a typical crush by Houdini; I thought I was winning but Houdini steered for a pawn up ending with good winning chances:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. c4 d6 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nc2 Be7 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O b6 10. f4 Bb7 11. Bf3 a6 12. b3 b5 13. cxb5 axb5 14. e5 dxe5 15.Qxd8 Rfxd8 16. fxe5 Nd7 17. Nxb5 Ndxe5 18. Be2 Bf6 19. a4 Na5 20. Ncd4 Nec6 21.Nxc6 Bxc6 22. Ra2 Bd5 23. Bb2 Bg5 (from here on I had Houdini play both sides of the position) 24. Ra3 Bxb3 25. Bf3 Be7 26. Raa1 Rac8 27.Bc3 Nc4 28. Bd1 Bc5+ 29. Kh1 Bxd1 30. Raxd1 Rxd1 31. Rxd1 h5 32. g3 Bb6 33. Rc1 Ra8 34. Bxg7 Rxa4 35. Bf6 Ra5 36. Be7 Ne3 -+