My nephew beat HOUDINI?!?!

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #421


    haven't checked all 22 pages to see if markamark came back, however, a few other points should be introduced. A 3000 player, child or adult, might not be known if he plays only White...or, as is known to happen at times, the person suddenly goes off, knocking over pieces and board in a nightmare reaction to his own thoughts. That last does not go over well at Chess matches at all, I think. Especially when you consider all the people who complain bitterly about things such as "he didn't reply fast enough...I could have won sooner..."

    Another thought not so indelicately repeated is reincarnation. Houdini? HA! Chess? DOUBLE HA! Mozart. Yeah...THAT Mozart. You know... The bartender in Springfield. no...not the bartender.
    Shameless copy of Mozarts older sister's recollection, from wikipedia,
    "... In the fourth year of his age his father, for a game as it were, began to teach him a few minuets and pieces at the clavier.... He could play it faultlessly and with the greatest delicacy, and keeping exactly in time.... At the age of five, he was already composing little pieces, which he played to his father who wrote them down"

    I dare anyone here to sit down and write a two page song let alone minuets, studies, and themes. Maybe one in tenthousand can? There are ONLY 271+ billion move variations in the first four moves of Chess...there are no ends to how many eight note tunes can be found in music (eight because four moves is White four + Black four) It is infinitely harder.

    But the sad part is, if true, the child will at some point be left in a very lonely position of not having anyone to play at all. None will be able to, nor will they want to because of the implications on their "worthiness."

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #422


    Bears shouldn't drink kool-aid.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #423


    LegoPirateSenior wrote:

    Here are results of a quick analysis of that game, using Houdini 1.5a, 512MB hash, 10s/move, at least 14 plies, analysis starting from move 26 (per pfren's diagnosis of 25 book moves). CPU: 2.66 GHz i7, single processor used.

    For those unfamiliar with top-3 methodology for detecting engine use, top-1 is the percentage of positions where the 1st egine choice was played, top-2 is the percentage of positions where either the 1st or 2nd engine choice was played, et.c. 

    Adam Top1 match: 24/36 = 66.67 %
    Adam Top2 match: 33/36 = 91.67 %
    Adam Top3 match: 35/36 = 97.22 %

    Houdini 3 x64 Top1 match: 25/35 = 71.43 %
    Houdini 3 x64 Top2 match: 32/35 = 91.43 %
    Houdini 3 x64 Top3 match: 33/35 = 94.29 %

    The 10s/move analysis time was based on the OP's statement of having given Houdini 5 minutes for the entire game. This setting is not really correct, but not much can be done without knowing the exact time that the opponents took for each move. I have only the free version of Houdini, so that's another source of inaccuracy.

    Given the inaccuracies and small sample, there's no way to draw firm conclusions, however, the numbers are consistent with what might be expected from analyzing a Houdini-Houdini match.

    Interesting. Adam is more Houdini-like than Houdini!  


  • 22 months ago · Quote · #424


    Wow, you mean he out-Houdinied Houdini? That's almost Borislavish like. Oh......wait.......hmm.....ok......

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #425


    This old chestnut thread still going?

    It's already been summarised on page 18 comment 341.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #426


    Its a well known fact to any competent computer scientist chess progammer that the perfect version of any chess playing computer plays only slightly better than a person playing randomized moves if its opening and engame database are off. The computer cannot properly calculate the entire string of possibilities and depending on the time control it will stop the thorough analysis well before any concrete desicion can be determined than it almost "randomly" will select a ove. It's not random but it's based on it's highest move rating which often is silimar to picking the move that delays any end as long as it can. Also it always plays for a draw if no forced mate /win is in sight. In fact I performed ten studies where i played the most advanced houdini and fritz on the highest rating (w/o any preprogrammed databases on of course) and selected my moves based on a nearby battleship game as well as by using the random # button in the calculator to determine my moves. I played them each 5 games. The somewhat predictable result was that i won three games (two to Houdini and one to Fritz) and lost seven. The drawish games against Fritz were drawn since Fritz offered and against Houdini, Houdini won.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #427


    Its a well known fact to any competent computer scientist chess progammer that the perfect version of any chess playing computer plays only slightly better than a person playing randomized moves if its opening and engame database are off.

    [Citation needed]

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #428


    But calculate the entire string of possibilities is easy maybe NGO should help computer.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #429


    Sure looks like it's playing random moves to me.

  • 22 months ago · Quote · #430


    PearlFey wrote:

    Its a well known fact to any competent computer scientist chess progammer that the perfect version of any chess playing computer plays only slightly better than a person playing randomized moves if its opening and engame database are off.

    [Citation needed]

    [Citation will never be supplied, because it's complete B.S.]

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #431


    MISTERGQ wrote:

    I call BS. I don't believe this for a second.

    Think about chess geniuses over time. 50-70 years ago we had chess geniuses with shitty openning theory. From the story, we can deduce that this book is the only chess thing hes read and its a natural talent, but from the game that was posted, we can infer that a ton of openning knowledge has been built for years. Im not saying its impossible for this kid to have gone on the internet and learned this stuff  on his own, but its pretty ridiculous that this story would be taken seriously. It is too well thought out, just like a story would be. It has no characteristics of a person telling a true story, like a journalistic article, but it has a feel like a story book. 

    It is fairly obvious that his 'nephew' being autistic is just a vehicle to get people to believe this drivel. Right when a normal person would look at the story and think 'this guy is full of shit,' he drops that his nephew is autistic to lend authenticisty. 

    Frankly, the forums are filled with people wanting to think they are smarter than everyone else because they play chess. This is a common theme in posts. 

    Example posts: 'Does chess make people smarter?' 'Are kids that play chess smarter?' These kinds of post reveal an atmosphere within the chess community of wanting to dominate mentally. 

    This lends motive to why someone would BS this post. To get 'one over' on the people of To be honest, some of the posts here make me roll my eyes and say, "really? thats the stupidest thing I've heard all day."


    This post is a fake, and the poster is trying to prey on us by making us think his nephew is a genius. Ignore this fake fable, it reads just like an urban legend.

    I have to agree. Almost all of white's moves correspond with Stockfish 5, but as Stockfish 5 was not out at the time the OP was written, I speculate white was Stockfish DD. Also, black made a tun of careless blunders around move 30 that a 3200 engine just would not make, so I speculate Black was not Houdini 3.

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #432


    congratulations i belive you why two reasons if you analysis in the comp comp he can't understand the position and the ather reason i have win houdin 2pro in closed sicelian

  • 15 months ago · Quote · #433


    Comp. vs. Comp. Obvious. Why is this 23 pages?

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #434


    It's 22 pages because it could be legit.  I want to believe.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #435


    It's interesting how everyone's first instinct is that the OP is lying. Don't people nowadays believe in trust anymore?

Back to Top

Post your reply: