skeletor1 wrote:
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?
Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)
Sort:
Scottrf wrote:
skeletor1 wrote:
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.
Aug 17, 2013
0
#464
"They usually switch between two or three alternatives to each position at maximum"
That makes for billions of possible games.
thecheesykid wrote:
"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.
Aug 18, 2013
0
#466
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.
FirebrandX wrote:
But hey, lets keep in mind that skeletor, a 1700 blitzer, can somehow manage to play one of the most brilliant games ever attributed (supposedly) to a human beating Houdini, and at blitz no less! That's all predicated on if you actually buy his story...
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
All these these recorded wins against any engine are Correspondance games when the human is using an engine aswell.
Oct 14, 2013
0
#472
Kaseldop wrote:
All these these recorded wins against any engine are Correspondance games when the human is using an engine aswell.
No, Nemeth's are blitz games, and he's not using an engine...
Oct 15, 2013
0
#474
I just watched a lecture video from Ben Finegold(St. Louis Chess Club) on You-Tube where he makes a point that when his opponent(a human) is thinking a long time over a move, he invariably makes the wrong move. This is normal time OTB of course, but does having days to ponder over a move give a human an edge? Or is there a point of diminishing return? ie think long think wrong? :)
RogerOT wrote:
What was the result of the two centaur games you played against him?
The score was 0-0. He never challenged me.
Did you ever play Daeth? Are they even still around?
pfren wrote:
Oh boy, some people are unable to understand simple things...
Here is the position from my game- it's white's turn to play.
Feed it to Houdini 2.0c or any other engine, and let him think for as long as you please.
After calculating "everything" he will come up with either Ne1 or Kh2, with a close to equal evaluation - but both moves are losing. Factly, Kh2 isn't losing either, as long as white follows the "inferior" plan of keeping the knight passively on g2.
The correct move is either Rc1 or Ra1, which is regarded as way inferior by Houdini, but it draws instead: Black cannot break into white's fortress, despite the fact white having effectively no white squared control at all.
Interesting post. I tried this position on my computer,a fairly powerful one with Houdini 4 pro.
At 30 ply (15 minutes thinking) it prefers Kh2 -0.48, then Ra1 -0.49, and Rc1 -0.61. It means that the engine has improved but it's not quite there yet.
My intention was not to prove IM pfren wrong, which he is not, of course; I just wanted to test my hardware.
pfren wrote:
It's not so difficult to beat Houdini in correspondence chess. Computers still lack certain elements of positional understanding, and they can certainly be outplayed by a strong player. On rapid/blitz games though, it is a totally different story.
Well... a computer in correspondence chess can spend it's whole time analyzing everything, and thus can find the most major combinations that could arise, and be ready for all of them. So even a really strong player would find himself in trouble against a computer that already knows almost everything that he could play. I think.
Mar 24, 2014
0
#480
Unleash_the_Queens wrote:
pfren wrote:
It's not so difficult to beat Houdini in correspondence chess. Computers still lack certain elements of positional understanding, and they can certainly be outplayed by a strong player. On rapid/blitz games though, it is a totally different story.
Well... a computer in correspondence chess can spend it's whole time analyzing everything, and thus can find the most major combinations that could arise, and be ready for all of them. So even a really strong player would find himself in trouble against a computer that already knows almost everything that he could play. I think.
You can test your theory in a very easy way.
Play correspondence chess games (in LSS for free or in ICCF if you want to get a Fide Correspondence chess rating) and let Houdini 4 choose all your moves.
Then count how many tournaments you can win.
You are truly a miserable person. The computer plays badly in the games and you still think they are a hoax