Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)


  • 18 months ago · Quote · #581

    VuThuong

    pfren wrote:

    Factly, engines can also make grave mistakes in open positions.

    Here is an example from a game of mine at LSS:

    Credits for the move 12...e3!? belong to the US correspondence IM Gordon Dunlop. My evaluation, after a lot of analysis, is that white is quite OK after 13.Bxe3! when his massive center and two pawns give him adequate compensation for the piece.

    Luckily enough, my opponent played 13.Qb3?, which is the engine's suggestion after A LOT of thought, and which just fails tactically. For the record, mr. Dunlop's opponent did not take the knight on b4, and lost within six moves.

    Maybe it's difficult for Houdini only in this particular position. But for Stockfish 4 (very old now), the engine came up with 14. hxg3 as best variant (-0.22 point) and disregard 14.Qxb4 as bad move very clearly (-0.75 point) at depth=25. So there was not a mistake of the machine but rather a misjudgement of the human player, who overridden with 14.Qxb4 and led his game ineviatbly to doom.

    And StockFish didn't need a LOT of thought to come out with 13.Qb3 as you said, just around 30 s on my old laptop!
    But from depth=20 onwards, StockFish favors 13.gxh4 as the best variant to neutralize the treat on g3 (~0.0). The move 13.Qb3 is punished with a heavy low score of -0.59, clearly a bad omen.
    I truely can not understand how this could be explained as "following a machine advice".
    There is another mistake at 17.Rae1 where the knight could take the rook on f1. StockFish proposed 17.Rfe1 as a simple escape but recognized then 17...Qh4 as a very serious threat (-1.54).

    For me, it's unmistakable a misjudgment of the human player which had led to the loss of white, not of the machine!
     ( { [Stockfish 270414] 28:+0.00} 13. gxh4 Nh5 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Bxf8
        Kxf8 16. Qxe3 Qxh4 17. Qh6+ Ke7 18. Qe3+ Kf8 )
        ( { [Stockfish 270414] 27:-0.10} 13. g4 a5 14. Bxe3 Nh7 15. d5 Na6 16.Bd4 Nc5 17. Qc2 Bd7 18. e4 Re8 19. e5 Qg5 20. Rfe1 Qh6 21. Be3 Qg7 22. exd6 )
        ( { [Stockfish 270414] 27:-0.30} 13. Bxe3 Nh7 14. d5 Qe7 15. Bh6 Re8 16. Qd2 hxg3 17. hxg3 a5 18. e4 Na6 19. Be3 Nc5 20. Rae1 Qe5 21. g4 Bd7 22. Rd1 Qf6 23. b3 )
        ( { [Stockfish 270414] 27:-0.59} 13. Qb3 hxg3 14. hxg3 Re8 15. Qxb4 Nh5 16. g4 Ng3 17. Rfe1 Qh4 18. Qb5 Bf5 )
    13. ... hxg3 14. Qxb4
        ( {[Stockfish 270414] 26:-0.25} 14. hxg3 Nh5 15. Qxb4 Nxg3 16. Bxf8 Nxe2+ 17. Kh1 Ng3+ )
        ( {[Stockfish 270414] 25:-0.75} 14. Qxb4 gxh2+ 15. Kxh2 Ng4+ 16. fxg4 Qh4+ 17. Kg1 Qxh6 18. Qe1 Bxg4 19. Qg3 Qg7 20. Rae1 Rae8 21. Rf4 Be6 22. Qxg7+ Kxg7 23. b3 Bc8 24. Rc1 f5 25. c5 Rh8 26. cxd6 cxd6 )
    14. ... Nh5 15. hxg3 Re8 16. g4 Ng3 17. Rae1
        ( { [Stockfish 270414] 26:-0.34} 17. Rfe1 Bxg4 18. Qb5 Be6 19. Bxe3 Bxc4 20. Qg5+ Qxg5 )
        ( { [Stockfish 270414] 25:-1.68} 17. Rae1 Nxf1 18. Rxf1 )
        ( { [Stockfish 270414] 26:-1.54} 17. Rfe1 Qh4 18. Qb5 Bf5 19. Bf4 Kg7
        20. Qb3 Re7 21. Bxe3 Rh8 22. d5 Bxg4 23. fxg4 Qh2+ 24. Kf2 Ne4+ 25.
        Kf1 Rhe8 26. Bd4+ Kg8 27. Qd3 Ng3+ 28. Kf2 Rxe2+ 29. Rxe2 Rxe2+ 30.
        Qxe2 Nxe2 31. Kxe2 Qxg2+ 32. Kd3 b5 33. cxb5 Qxd5 )
    17. ... Nxf1 18. Rxf1 Qf6 19. Qb5 Be6 20. Bg5 Qxd4 21. b3 Rab8 22. Qa5 f6
    23. Bh4 Re7 24. Rc1 Rf8 25. Qc3 Qxc3 26. Rxc3 Bd7 27. Bg3 f5 28. f4 Bc6
    29. Bxc6 bxc6 30. g5 c5 31. Kg2 Kf7 32. Rc1 Rh8 33. Rf1 a5 34. Be1 a4 35.
    Bc3 Rh4 36. Be1 Rg4+ 37. Kf3 Re4 0-1

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #582

    StormShield

    There are enough proofs of this ,that nowadays engines can't be beaten by any human player,the best that can be reached is some laughable draw ,nothing more.(and it depends on the opening)

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #583

    NewArdweaden

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #584

    EscherehcsE

    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #585

    NewArdweaden

    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #586

    EscherehcsE

    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #587

    NewArdweaden

    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

    I don't think it's entirely meaningless. It says that there still is something to people that machines lack (for now). 

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #588

    EscherehcsE

    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

    I don't think it's entirely meaningless. It says that there still is something to people that machines lack (for now). 

    The only thing this tells us is that in a human + comp vs. comp game, the human doesn't have to worry about making tactical mistakes, and he can try to supply long-term strategy that's superior to the computer's ability. However, in a human vs. comp game, the human also has to supply 100% of his side's tactical talent. And that's the critical difference.

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #589

    NewArdweaden

    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:
    EscherehcsE wrote:
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

    And an olympic sprinter with a Ferrari can beat a race horse. So what?

    No, I'm saying that Schumacher with a Ferrari can beat you with a Ferrari.

    There are many true statements which are completely meaningless to the issue of human vs. computer games. The fact that a human plus a computer can beat a computer at chess is one of those statements.

    I don't think it's entirely meaningless. It says that there still is something to people that machines lack (for now). 

    The only thing this tells us is that in a human + comp vs. comp game, the human doesn't have to worry about making tactical mistakes, and he can try to supply long-term strategy that's superior to the computer's ability. However, in a human vs. comp game, the human also has to supply 100% of his side's tactical talent. And that's the critical difference.

    And, of course, endgame play. I agree with you, though. In my opinion, that's just enough information for that comment to deserve its place here. 

  • 17 months ago · Quote · #590

    MuhammadAreez10

    Vettel is in a Ferrari now.

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #591

    VuThuong

    For anyone interessted, here the (probably) last human vs machine experiment:

    On July 19, 2014, Stockfish 5 played a four game match versus Daniel Naroditsky plus Rybka 3 (2008), 45 minutes plus 30-second increment. Stockfish won 3½ - ½ [10][11]. A few weeks later the experiment continued with Hikaru Nakamura in Burlingame, California [12]. Supported two games by Rybka 3, Nakamura lost ½ - 1½, two games with pawn odds (Stockfish both Black without h- and b-pawn) ended ½ - 1½ in favour to Stockfish 5 as well. It played the latest development build compiled for OS X running on a 3 GHz 8-Core Mac Pro [13]

    (Source: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Stockfish)

    So even with the help of a (slightly weaker) engine, the number 3 of the world still can not beat the world-best chess engine in a tournament condition!

    Can he beat the machine in a correspondence chess without help of computer? That is the interessting question!

  • 16 months ago · Quote · #592

    NewArdweaden

    VuThuong wrote:

    For anyone interessted, here the (probably) last human vs machine experiment:

    On July 19, 2014, Stockfish 5 played a four game match versus Daniel Naroditsky plus Rybka 3 (2008), 45 minutes plus 30-second increment. Stockfish won 3½ - ½ [10][11]. A few weeks later the experiment continued with Hikaru Nakamura in Burlingame, California [12]. Supported two games by Rybka 3, Nakamura lost ½ - 1½, two games with pawn odds (Stockfish both Black without h- and b-pawn) ended ½ - 1½ in favour to Stockfish 5 as well. It played the latest development build compiled for OS X running on a 3 GHz 8-Core Mac Pro [13]

    (Source: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Stockfish)

    So even with the help of a (slightly weaker) engine, the number 3 of the world still can not beat the world-best chess engine in a tournament condition!

    Can he beat the machine in a correspondence chess without help of computer? That is the interessting question!

    The answer to the last question is yes. Wink If it wasn't true, there would no longer be any correspondence chess championships.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #593

    DreamThief2

    It used to be computers were not taken seriously because they didn't understand light/dark square weaknesses etc...they have always been very good at tactics.  These days I would put my money on the top software every time against any opponent.  I even wrote the creator of Houdini and asked him how he thought his program would do against Magnus Carlson at normal tournament time controls.  He proudly replied that Houdini would win 8 out of 10 games.  Even Carlson himself said he hates playing computers because it's simply no fun.  I'll make the same challenge PrawnEatsPrawn...I'll run Houdini 4 on my Alienware laptop at tournament time controls and Houdini will beat you every time.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #594

    Colin20G

    I've heard many times that human players are still able to handle computers in correspondence time control. Apparently the horizon effect https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Horizon+Effect is a limiting factor in software performance. I've seen a strong master resisting against Komodo with some bizarre gambits (during correspondence play of course).
    That being said, in correspondence you can use computers and a human with computer will beat a lone computer of course.
    On the other hand, in standard tournament controls human has no chance.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #595

    Crappov

    DreamThief2 wrote:

    It used to be computers were not taken seriously because they didn't understand light/dark square weaknesses etc...they have always been very good at tactics.  These days I would put my money on the top software every time against any opponent.  I even wrote the creator of Houdini and asked him how he thought his program would do against Magnus Carlson at normal tournament time controls.  He proudly replied that Houdini would win 8 out of 10 games.  Even Carlson himself said he hates playing computers because it's simply no fun.  I'll make the same challenge PrawnEatsPrawn...I'll run Houdini 4 on my Alienware laptop at tournament time controls and Houdini will beat you every time.

    I think he meant Houdini would win 8 out of 10 points, with Magnus losing 6, but drawing 4, as he declares in this video ---->>

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj188KNjQL4

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #596

    DreamThief2

    Crappov, thank you for the correction.  You are right, he said 8 out of 10 points, not 8 out of 10 games.  There was also an article in Chesslife that says perfect chess is somewhere around 3500 rating.  Will we ever know?

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #597

    Another-Life

    Humans versus Houdini? Check this out:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borislav_Ivanov

    It seems the disgusting cheater won or drew every game by following blindly Houdini's moves. He didn't have the luxury of watching the analysis, just receiving info about what to play. So this wasn't a human with engine aid but just someone acting as an avatar for Houdini.


Back to Top

Post your reply: