My nephew beat HOUDINI?!?!

yes normally i do take out the first 8 moves from analaysis to reprevent repitition of positions, and also i would exclude moves where evaluation is over 3 pawns for long game and 5 pawns for blitz games, but this is single game so let these be in the output for this single game , the raw value is all moves barring all moves that are forced to reply where the first move is grearter than 2 pawns than second best move as all players can make these moves 70-90% strike rate so are not good for measureing, also like drawn positions also no good for measureing is no drawn positions this game, book err is just for first 15 moves, and middle is from move 16 until endgame , endgame i have taken definition as when minor pieces is less than 11 points for both players , ie two rooks or less or is less than 16 points in minor/major pieces when queen is still on the board.

with out more game examples there is no real reading u can get from single game even elo tpr for adam at present based on ccrl 4/40 table

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/

would put adam rating at houdini3 rating plus 400 for this game , so this would give adam a elo performance of 3320 +400=3720 tpr

if i remove after first 12 moves then this is the middle game part plus the endgame :) so it is all there.

25 move book openning thoery is pretty hard to see some kid being able to walk houdini down this path rolf.

but it is 25 move openning thoery so this is not original game.

but here is anayalisis based on no book :

Adam (White)- Accuracy 97% Blunders 0 (0%.) Mistakes 0 (0%.) Sub Opt 2 (6.1%.)Exp-Px 0.5 Obs-Px 0.71 Exp IPR 3209      
Raw Err= 0.103-60.6%(20/33), 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- 60.6% (20/33)-Top2- 75.8% (25/33)-Top3- 93.9% (31/33)-Top4- 97% (32/33)      
Most Consectutive Candiate moves made 7 from move 37. Bc4+ to move 43. Ra3-NQ moves-open:24 Drawn:0 Forced:4 NQval:0      
      
      
Houdini 3 x64 (Black)- Accuracy 91% Blunders 0 (0%.) Mistakes 2 (6.1%.) Sub Opt 2(6.1%.) Exp-Px 0.5 Obs-Px 0.29 Exp IPR 3126      
Raw Err= 0.165-48.5%(16/33), 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- 48.5% (16/33)-Top2- 78.8% (26/33)-Top3- 84.8% (28/33)-Top4- 90.9% (30/33)      
Most Consectutive Candiate moves made 5 from move 13.. Ne8 to move 17.. b3-NQ moves-open:24 Drawn:0 Forced:3 NQval:0      
     

if hes famous in a year true if not than not. Has he played masters on this site or over the board?

OP has absolutely ZIP evidence about his nephew beating Houdini. None whatsoever. If you're going to tell about some revolutionary news story then make sure to back it up with HARD, CONCRETE evidence. As of right now, nobody believes you. You, yourself do not have any credit to persuade us to believe you. 

Frankly, I think OP is just trying to attract attention for himself.

...seems like Adam's middle name is Houdini...

was daeth the one with the opening name going on?

My Nephew beat KOBE BRYANT?!?!

Unfortunately, there isn't a chess.com feature to add basketball games, so I made this to simulate what happened:

HoudiniNBA (pro, not free) rated my nephew's game as being within the 3000's rating range.  All moves were 100% accurate.

Qaxf7# is much better!

To answer your questions more sensibly, what you describe is not at all unknown. There have always been child prodigies at chess (also maths and music). To put this in a context if you are a gifted mathmatecian and you have not published anything world shaking by 18 you tell yourself you never will. Youth is just not a very significant factor in these fields.

The fact that Adam can absorb My Greatest Predecessors and perform well against a strong program shows that he has a very unusual mind and that he has a talent. What it does not demonstrate is that he will ever do the things that the great world champions of chess have done. He won't at that age, and may not with the cast of mind he has, attach the same importance to excelling as you or I would.

I suggest you do right to draw this to the attention of Adam's family. I'd not push it too hard. They clearly know that Adam is a bit different and any fool could take one look at My Greatest Predecessors and know that devouring such a work at this age is unusual. Exactly how they fit this in to their bringing up of their son I have no idea. But that it is very much their business to do so is obvious and that the judgment calls required are rather difficult becomes apparent as soon as you think about it a bit.

In England we spent rather a long time wedded to a dogma which said that "gifted" children should most sensibly be educated in mainstream schools. After much pain that idea (when I last had any knowledge of this quite some years ago) had been wholly abandoned and the idea of tayloring the education to the talent came to be accepted.

But that is a truly tough debate to examine so I wish your relatives well in how they decide to go. They will be getting advice from an educational psychologist. If chess input turns out to be a feature that is where advice about that should sensibly come from. What might do no harm is just to mention to Adam's parents that you visited this site and the extent of the talent was sufficient to engender disbelieve.

Who would they get to educate him? It appears from that game that he's playing at about 2900 to 3300 strength already, which means he's already the best player on the planet by a country mile. His biggest obstacle is going to be overcoming the accusations of engine use which will no doubt dog his career, since his brain appears to work in a very similar way to a specific version of Houdini, which is most unfortunate.

Someone still thinks the story is true.

Amazing

I find that if I don't initially understand a post, all soon becomes clear, if I suspect sarcasm.

I drew against chessmaster once ...

I beat the U16 "Cadet" World Chess Champion, at tennis.

Still felt good.

My computer beat me at chess, but I won at kickboxing.

I won several times against Carlsen.

Still can't understand why he appeared in my dream just to lose four times in a row.

If this was true, it would be pretty amazing. If not, still a great game. haha

I wonder if Houdini was used to beat houdini.

He was probably having a laugh.

Freud said that everyone in your dreams is you. So (if you accepted that idea) you might conclude that you have some fear of failure active at the moment.

If it's true, he's definately got some chess skills for his age. As was suggested earlier in the thread, put him in some chess tournaments and he can win money, and trophies. Everything else will follow naturally.

If it wasn't true then, oh well. Still a fun game to click through. :)