My nephew beat HOUDINI?!?!

You know, when you work hard on some variation, when you give Houdini (and not only Houdini) time control 40 hours/40 moves when you check some possible and interesting ideas (not only ideas which strong engines suggest, but your own ideas, too), when it takes 1-2 hours (sometimes even more) for Houdini to make one move with that time control, and when in that way after one or two weeks you invent one single move and put it carefully into your notes while working on that variation, and so on move after move - after several months you can of course give Houdini, or Stockfish, or Rybka the usual time control of 2 hours/40 moves and just see what those chess monsters will do against your elaborations

I beat Houdini the other day myself. Of course it was set at 1400... ;-)

This reminds me of a little known fact: the word "gullible" is not listed in either Merriam-Webster or in the Oxford English dictionaries (neither in the printed nor in the online versions).

Ha!  That's funny.  Nor is there a definition of credulous.

I know someone who looked it up twice... XD

Was that second post marka marks last post? Because he logged on last month. XD

Someone who was gullible wouldn't look it up, they would reblog it or something.

It should be.

Lol. I don't believe the post, sorry. Noone playes over 3000 strength at age 8. If it was true he would crush all the current GMs too.

Even If he was Morphy in his previous life he still would be not smart enough to beat Houdini. May be he is an android from the future... I put Stockfish 5, Commodo against Houdini but still Houdini came out better most of the time. 

My god, the OP is a post or War and Peace

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."

Bears shouldn't drink kool-aid.

Interesting. Adam is more Houdini-like than Houdini!  

BS!!!!

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

This old chestnut thread still going?

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

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.

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]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrLbB4ieYfI

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

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