x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Humans v Houdini chess engine (Elo 3300)

  • #581

    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)

  • #582

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

  • #583
    NewArdweaden wrote:

    Human with computer can beat a computer.

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

  • #584
    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.

  • #585
    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.

  • #586
    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). 

  • #587
    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.

  • #588
    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. 

  • #589

    Vettel is in a Ferrari now.

  • #590

    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!

  • #591
    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.

  • #592

    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.

  • #593
    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

  • #594

    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.

  • #595

    1. Blitz / rapid - Computers win easily
    2. Classical - Compters win easily
    3. CC - Humans WITH computer aid can beat pure computer dependant players
    4. Top human players agree computers are far superior
    5. CC Humans vs computers? .......................Humans win!!

    Great logic there, get a brain. 

Top

Online Now