Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)

That would be a fun game, actually I think I would be able to tell though. Computers tend to have their own distinctive style. And I've heard that if you set an engine's strength down from the actual amount, it will play like a 3000 engine, except that it will deliberately make bad moves at random moments, and usually those moments are rather awkward. I'm probably wrong about that though.

At 3300 strength do you really think positional knowledge is necessary?

Welcome to death by a thousand cuts, at minimum.

Indeed, Quick Death is much more likely.

Positional knowledge is one of the components that bring it to 3300.

Of course the computer needs some kind of evaluation system -- otherwise how would it know if it was reaching promising positions! If it can calculate 15 moves ahead, but doesn't know if the position 15 moves ahead is something to strive for, then the calculation is completely useless.

Indeed, as (Senior) GM Larry Kaufmann (from Md.) has show in his programming contributions to the Rybka program.

Since every 400 rating points constitutes a qualitative LEAP in playing strength, once above 2800, does it really matter how we label the engine's strength--as tactical, positional, or strategic?  Hardly.  They are all Killers.  

Depends if you want to. I want to, because it's fun.

Yes, we all have fun with out toys engines.

Given the post-game analysis (of OTB games) that engines provide, they let us sleep much easier at night.  We don't wake up with in the middle of night with that "great move," we didn't see (and make) during the OTB game.    That's quite a relief.

There is no doubt that modern egnines have redefined the game of chess. 

Just imagine how many illusions have been destroyed because of their analysis. 

The problem with us is that we have a psychology. Computers are pure thinking machines.

Computers are the somatic extension of human intelligence.

As for "illusions," you carry a boatload, @Yereslov, most of which you are totally unaware.

Then again, you claim to be immortal, inter alia.  No surprises there.    

Very interesting. I think I found the solution but Houdini couldn't. I feel like a genius :D

Chess Master disagrees with you and seems to think forced mate in 3 moves:

1.Kd3, b5.

2.E8(queen), Kb4

3.Qxb5 (mate)

I ran this through on Chess Master and gave it 90 seconds to 'think' but it only took a split second before it replied with this.

How does the King get to d3?

Are you looking at the right game?

My engine found the draw in about three seconds with deep position analysis.

Hey IM pfren, do you think IBM cheated when Deep Blue beat Kasparov?

Is houdini worth the amount paid for the program

Pfren must be confused. The main reason why chess engines have jumped in rating is because of their positional ability.

In almost every GM game I've analyzed Rybka has spotted the "brilliant" line within seconds.

I'm just using a weak laptop, by the way, so it has nothing to do with brute force analysis. 

Also, folks, let's not forget that the engines GM's play against are powered by very powerful supercomputers.

A commercial chess engine running on weak software won't be much of a challenge.

Yes.

Here's the hardware that Kramnik played against:

This was against Fritz 10.

If Kasparov at his best can't defeat Deep Blue, what good are we against the machines?