SmyslovFan wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Houdini is rather weak if you choose to play bullet chess.
I'd say something, but your laughter says it all
My nephew beat HOUDINI?!?!
Sort:
Yereslov wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Houdini is rather weak if you choose to play bullet chess.
Running on an average laptop that statement is true. It takes the engine at least a minute to really grasp some positions.
Was this laptop made during the Reagan administration?
Apr 13, 2013
0
#324
Maybe Yereslov is trying to say something about the relative strength of Houdini as opposed to other engines.
On another site, players such as Hikaru Nakamura (perhaps the best human bullet player on the planet) have bullet ratings around 2500-2550. Data, which is Houdini run on an Intel i7, has an average bullet rating of 3000-3100. And yes, Data is currently undefeated against Nakamura in bullet chess.
It currently holds the #1 spot in bullet chess. #2 is held by another houdini engine.
In blitz chess, Fabiano Caruana currently has a slightly higher rating than some Houdini users on that site!
SmyslovFan wrote:
rooperi wrote:
chessgdt wrote:
To all the people who believe this: There is "gullible" written on your ceiling. XD
You misspelt Gullible. All the new dictionaries give it as Gulible.
Cute, Roop.
you misspelled "misspelt" I mena, misspelled... Oh, whatever
XxSkullxX wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
rooperi wrote:
chessgdt wrote:
To all the people who believe this: There is "gullible" written on your ceiling. XD
You misspelt Gullible. All the new dictionaries give it as Gulible.
Cute, Roop.
you misspelled "misspelt" I mena, misspelled... Oh, whatever
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misspelt
I'm also pretty sure 'mena' isn't a word. Gotta love it when someone does that.
Sydfhd wrote:
ya houdini is very weak in fast games. I downloaded Houdini 1.5a and stockfish 2.0.1 both 32bit from chess.com downloads. In 10 games houdini scored +2 -3 and =5(although most of the draws were winning for Stockfish)
That would also have to do with the current version of Stockfish being better than an old version of Houdini.
Apr 21, 2013
0
#329
Congratulations. But who is "Adam"? It looks like one of those chess computers that is set on "easy" settings played the Black pieces.
Amusingly, there was only one move by either side that did not involve moving a pawn or royalty (6...Bb7).
Someone posted this on Youtube. Can't find it right now. It is supposed to show a game of him (white) against Houdini 1.5 (black) in a 20-Minute game. I replayed it in Arena to make a pgn out of it and see if it could be "real".
And I think it actually could be.
He said he is a GM of 2400ish rating and it is one of very few actual wins against Houdini. And that Houdini (at least the 1.5-version) sometimes makes weird moves.
I think 24. a3 was totally strange and Nd7 should have been played instead to give the King a path to escape. Maybe a misevaluation-bug concerning pawns near the opposite side of the board.
May 12, 2013
0
#332
Xilmi wrote:
Someone posted this on Youtube. Can't find it right now.
I have Fritz 13. I downloaded the free version of Houdini 1.5, which I defeated easily.....
with a 600 handicap!!!!
Xilmi wrote:
Someone posted this on Youtube. Can't find it right now. It is supposed to show a game of him (white) against Houdini 1.5 (black) in a 20-Minute game. I replayed it in Arena to make a pgn out of it and see if it could be "real".
And I think it actually could be.
He said he is a GM of 2400ish rating and it is one of very few actual wins against Houdini. And that Houdini (at least the 1.5-version) sometimes makes weird moves.
I think 24. a3 was totally strange and Nd7 should have been played instead to give the King a path to escape. Maybe a misevaluation-bug concerning pawns near the opposite side of the board.
There are a lot of options after 24. Nd7 for white. like Qh7+ Kf8 25. Ne6+ when black must trade the knight for his rook and will have a hard time defending pawns defended by those rooks a nd Qeen since Ke7 allows Qxg7#.
So "Adam" is the next Carlsen?
That's what I've been saying.
Let's make it happen!
sisu wrote:
Successful trolls post as little as possible. When they do post they ignore good points as much as possible.
Jun 29, 2013
0
#339
sisu wrote:
Ok you lot, there is another way in which this story may be true!
Think about kids these days, they are taught (by impressions in the media and from what their peers are saying) that winning is the only thing that matters. But in chess: winning games, gaining rating points is unimportant. What is important are the IDEAS.
But back to the story of Adam... he's just some kid who was handed a laptop with a ChessBase GUI to play Houdini. His uncle might not have set the game to be a "rated game", i.e. in which both sides have the same time limit. Now if we look at the original post it said that Adam took a long time on moves, but the engine did not. So what could have happened is that the pieces were set, and the game began. And in this format, anyone who play against the ChessBase GUI can see Houdini's moves that it is thinking.
So the "clever" kid Adam just copied the best moves that the Houdini was suggesting, and after giving it a lot of thinking time. When it was Houdini's move it was forced to move in a much shorter thinking time (maybe by hitting the space bar, as kids like to do because they are impatient). So the game effectively became Houdini 3 vs Houdini 3, with White having far more thinking time. And this is why the moves match up so clearly with engine moves. Nothing special.
The kid "won" the game and now he people think he is a good player. Please teach him properly.
Also it would be nice if there were some more comments on this thread by MarkaMark (original OP).
This is probably the most reasonable argument for Adam winning.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
sisu wrote:
Ok you lot, there is another way in which this story may be true!
Think about kids these days, they are taught (by impressions in the media and from what their peers are saying) that winning is the only thing that matters. But in chess: winning games, gaining rating points is unimportant. What is important are the IDEAS.
But back to the story of Adam... he's just some kid who was handed a laptop with a ChessBase GUI to play Houdini. His uncle might not have set the game to be a "rated game", i.e. in which both sides have the same time limit. Now if we look at the original post it said that Adam took a long time on moves, but the engine did not. So what could have happened is that the pieces were set, and the game began. And in this format, anyone who play against the ChessBase GUI can see Houdini's moves that it is thinking.
So the "clever" kid Adam just copied the best moves that the Houdini was suggesting, and after giving it a lot of thinking time. When it was Houdini's move it was forced to move in a much shorter thinking time (maybe by hitting the space bar, as kids like to do because they are impatient). So the game effectively became Houdini 3 vs Houdini 3, with White having far more thinking time. And this is why the moves match up so clearly with engine moves. Nothing special.
The kid "won" the game and now he people think he is a good player. Please teach him properly.
Also it would be nice if there were some more comments on this thread by MarkaMark (original OP).
This is probably the most reasonable argument for Adam winning.
Agreed. This is probably the most reasonable explanation about this whole crap.
Houdini is rather weak if you choose to play bullet chess.
Running on an average laptop that statement is true. It takes the engine at least a minute to really grasp some positions.