Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)

Keep in mind they're not "proving" anything. They're claiming some engine,  on some hardware, did x, while implicitly making the unlikely claim that that engine represents all software: as though a programmer who worked on  XP was the same programmer who started Dreamweaver. It's a specious claim to a very limited superiority without offering anything like conclusive proof. 

What's sad is if ignorance causes people to ignore the great advice.

Of course it's playing chess. What is it that humans are doing on the chess board that is so radically different from what chess engines are doing? To demonstrate your claim you'll need to define all the attributes of thinking, then demonstrate how and why chess engines do none of those things. You'll just end up tying yourself in knots, without demonstrating any such thing. 

Here, boys and girls.

White: Skeletor

black: Houdini 3

Result 1-0

1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 Nc6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. g3 d5 6. d3 d4 
7. Ne2 e5 8. Bg2 Bd6 9. O-O O-O 10. h3 Qe7 11. Ne1 a6 
12. f4 b5 13. b3 Qc7 14. f5 Bd7 15. g4 h6 16. Ng3 Be7 
17. h4 Nh7 18. Nf3 bxc4 19. g5 hxg5 20. hxg5 cxd3 21. Nh5 
g6 22. f6 Bd6 23. Nh4 Nb4 24. Nf5 Rab8 25. Qg4 Nc2 26. Rf3 
Nxa1 27. Rh3 Nxb3 28. Qh4 Nxg5 29. Qxg5 Rfe8 30. Qh6 Bf8 
31. Nhg7 Nxc1 32. Qh8# 1-0

Could be the fastest loss ever registered by houdini(In a sound opening). I used around 3-5 seconds for each move I played. Houdini had ample time, including permanent brain.

sure that's possible ... but what was the chess engine ELO rating set at? :)

also what is the cpu and ram ?

some other houdini losses against humans -

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=27366

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=27454

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43yR6Rx3ocE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb6hqRBuwf8 

My game was at 5+3 plus permanent brain. it was intel-core duo.  I did indeed only use around 3-5 seconds per move. 

My rating here is pretty irrelevant, I have beaten some good guys,and my active bullet rating was around 2400-2500.

The game was long over before Nxa1, houdini goes back and forth, depending on the time control. I am the only one beating it in blitz. but as you can see, you just block the kingside and run over it. You don't need to  play that spectacular. It commits the same strategical misstake at 40/40 as in blitz. Number of cores make very litttle difference, here.

Why don't we all calm down and have a nice cup of tea.

Because the moves are self evident to any strong player. Miserable patzer.

I agree with that miserable patzer. Looks like a composed game.

I am a philosopher, not a composer. Although I play beautiful, direct chess.

If you idiots opened your eyes, and viewed the links, you would come to realise that I am not the only one capable of beating this stupid computer.

You are truly a miserable person.  The computer plays badly in the games and you still think they are a hoax

Surely that would be the reason to think they are a hoax?

Not if they are capable of being reproduced, which all the games are.

Chess engines are deterministic. They usually switch between two or three alternatives to each position at maximum - which is dependent on ther order in which the moves are being calculated in the search.

"They usually switch between two or three alternatives to each position at maximum"

That makes for billions of possible games.

If you can reproduce the game, then it's legit, per definition. The computer has replayed the game. What's so hard to understand.

It will deviate at the most 2 or 3 moves on a given position. Aloth of times no deviation.

Having said that JoseO, now go download Critter 1.6a and try to beat it.

Chess for computers has nothing to do with intelligence, so the fact that a baby is more intelligent that a computer bears no relevance whatsoever.

I can do 54x97 in my head eventually, it might take me couple minutes though, a computer will do it within milliseconds. Chess is the same, they are calculating things that might take us a couple of minutes to spot within seconds merely through brute force calculation of lines, but also through a pretty amazing evaluation function that Houdini 3 has perfected. That's why if you play Houdini on depth 2 in a 1min game it's still going to have a pretty good chance of beating you, because it has such a strong eval function.

It isn't necessary for a computer to be smart to beat you at chess.

Seriously, dude, it's me, and it was blitz. Your waaay too kind. But finally some recognition at least.

lol

We all have heard of the odd game lost by modern engines.  I haven't heard of a match lost by one, though.

Eduard Nemeth would have a good chance with his anti-computer style

http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/honor.htm