While it is possible that a kid could beat or draw houdini (at blitz time control, on sub par machinery, it might only play at 2000), it is not possible that the game posted above (which is not in the chessbase megabase as claimed, and I know of no other chessbase database) was played by a kid. Every move is suggested by my houdini 1.5 a x64 on a 8 GB machine 4 core running 6 threads, or is confirmed by modern theory. No matter how brilliant you are it is impossible to come up with centuries work of modern theory on your own, and then to play computer like chess for the rest of the game. And yes, what I said earlier is true, if you run these games through houdini 1.5, more of the moves in this game are suggested than when I checked Ivanov's games.
My nephew beat HOUDINI?!?!
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 chess.com 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 chess.com. 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.
The first comment to discredit this story. I have to admit I thought this was fake but didn't want to call them on it. The super GM's don't stand a chance against Houdini in blitz games. I thought this was a great sign of the BS. Perhaps the computer was really slow and it didn't get far in their processing. Unfortunately, someone developing such skills on their own without making an effort to learn is as unlikely as an 11 year old kid re-writing Beethoven's 9th Symphony without ever hearing it and only learning basic music reading.
Ah, but the kid is autistic, so doesn't that change everything?
I personally would find it totally believable that a kid could write a perfect 2048-voiced fugue using all the themes Bach used in all his fugues, if he were autistic.
Computers don't resign.
You never played against an engine, did you?
Computers don't resign.
You never played against an engine, did you?
I haven't played against an engine.
Well, they do resign.
Hey he is like mee!!! I would like to play with him
Are you talking about chess, age or autism?
why doesn't the OP get the kid to play here? i would love to play him
Because trolls have some difficulty getting a valid e-mail, and using it to register here.
So, how difficult is Houdini compared to the Hard level on the computer at Chess.com?
Houdini would win 1000 out of 1000 games.
Same with computer impossible, Houdini would win 1000 out of 1000
wow.
That is a joke match. That is like me vs. Superman in a boxing fight. No contest.
i know, you'd win :P
why doesn't the OP get the kid to play here? i would love to play him
Because trolls have some difficulty getting a valid e-mail, and using it to register here.
If only that were true.
MarkaMark probably left chess.com
Chessbase invited another person to sit down in their office to play against Houdini and they guy declined. Maybe chessbase should extend the offer to this kid, I'm sure it will be declined as it sounds likea bucn of BS.
dunno if your a great chess player, but your a great story-teller!
this thread is slowing down.
We're too busy to post. We're spending all of our time checking the news outlets for the breaking story of a new Morphy.
I heard he gave up chess and switched over to dunking basketballs.
I heard he gave up chess and switched over to dunking basketballs.
Good to know. I suppose I can stop holding my breath waiting for that ChessBase interview...
hi
i have written a model for evaluating playing strength which is simular to prof regan model, and have a pretty good time scaling system to evaluate from bullet to long play elo performance,
the initial stats for adam and houdini are below based on both players having 5 min each to play game :
Adam (White)- Accuracy 98% Blunders 0 (0%.) Mistakes 0 (0%.) Sub Opt 2 (3.7%.)Exp-Px 0.5 Obs-Px 0.63 Exp IPR 3252
Raw Err= 0.081-55.6%(30/54), Book Err= 0.05-40%(6/15), middle Err= 0.104-57.6%(19/33),, Endgame Err= 0.033-83.3%(5/6).
White Candidate Moves= Top1- 55.6% (30/54)-Top2- 75.9% (41/54)-Top3- 88.9% (48/54)-Top4- 90.7% (49/54)
Most Consectutive Candiate moves made 7 from move 37. Bc4+ to move 43. Ra3-NQ moves-open:0 Drawn:0 Forced:7 NQval:0
Houdini 3 x64 (Black)- Accuracy 95% Blunders 0 (0%.) Mistakes 2 (3.5%.) Sub Opt 2(3.5%.) Exp-Px 0.5 Obs-Px 0.37 Exp IPR 3203
Raw Err= 0.116-49.1%(28/57), Book Err= 0.06-40%(6/15)), Middle Err= 0.109-54.29% (19/35), Endgame Err= 0.033-42.9%(3/7).
Black Candidate Moves= Top1- 49.1% (28/57)-Top2- 71.9% (41/57)-Top3- 78.9% (45/57)-Top4- 87.7% (50/57)
Most Consectutive Candiate moves made 5 from move 13.. Ne8 to move 17.. b3-NQ moves-open:0 Drawn:0 Forced:3 NQval:0
The IPr rating is meant for far greater number moves to get to real value so would need movre games in series won or lost to get true reading and amount of time for each player used :
but i can read that houdini had 5 min time and no mention to the boys time used to play game so given elo performance based on differnt times he may have used to play this game below:
adamns time used elo performance
5 min-------------------------------------- 3233
10 min-------------------------------------- 3166
15 min-------------------------------------- 3127
30 min-------------------------------------- 3060
60 min-------------------------------------- 2994
120 min-------------------------------------- 2927
without a series of games to check from and known tiem used to play game is hard to get true reading of performance.
White Candidate Moves= Top1- 55.6% (30/54)-Top2- 75.9% (41/54)-Top3- 88.9% (48/54)-Top4- 90.7% (49/54)
You seem to have included a number of book moves in your analysis (I am guessing all moves except for the forced ones). What would be the results if you recompute them only after move 25 (per pfren's comment #16 on the first page of this thread)?
You guys are so negative. I honestly believe that this kid Adam could be the next Lance Dopestrong...