The cat's out of the bag

[notyetagm]

As a human I wouldn't go for the RR+6 vs RBN+5 with Nxa7 as Rybka did, as two minors tend to win these, especially when White has redundant majors. White's passed a-pawn (and then the b-pawn) ended up just being weaknesses, and after they were lost, it's going to be hard for White to hold on.

Rybka played poorly, as I explained in the chat at Chessbomb there were at least 3 doubtful decisions:
1) 16.Nxa7: Going into an inferior R+P v B+N ending. Rybka took more than 23 minutes for this decision, and produced a +0.24 eval which turned out to be completely wrong.
2) 21.a4 and 22.a5: Pushing the a-pawn too soon just created a weakness, as Black has an extra piece to attack it.
3) 26.b4: Pushing the b-pawn created a passed pawn for black on the c or d-file, just for free.

Houdini didn't have to do a lot, even the "little Stockfish" version that is running at Chessbomb for the in-game analysis would have won today.

Robert,

Is this typical of how Houdini scores 58%(!) against Rybka 4? It just seemed to completely understand this position much better than Rybka 4 did.

You should submit this game to Monokroussos for the Game Of The Month. But wait, Houdini still has more games to win.

[notyetagm]

Thanks to Martin and TCEC (and Chessdom), Houdini is getting some wider press. Congratulations!

http://www.chessdom.com/news-2011/houdini-chess-engine

From talkchess:

Fascinating, and an incredible blunder by ChessDom. It isn't to besmirch Houdini BTW, as that is not the problem. It is the fact they are promoting a small private computer chess tournament, with no official recognition, on their front page as the main article, after only three rounds, which is the sort of reporting reserved for major international chess tournaments.... It is amazingly bad judgment, and beyond stupid.

Of course, I'm happy for Martin, but this changes nothing.

I knew this was not going to please the Rybka guys...

Anything to obscure the fact that Houdini scores 58%(!) versus Rybka 4.

[Martin Thoresen]

Honestly, I am a bit surprised by all this. But also glad. Glad that people visit my site and enjoy chess, and glad that Chessdom actually dares to write an article like they have done.
If nothing else, it should spawn a great deal of discussion in our forums.

And also, I totally understand Albert Silver's viewpoint.

[notyetagm]

Honestly, I am a bit surprised by all this. But also glad. Glad that people visit my site and enjoy chess, and glad that Chessdom actually dares to write an article like they have done.
If nothing else, it should spawn a great deal of discussion in our forums.

And also, I totally understand Albert Silver's viewpoint.

Well, if Rybka 4 scored 58% against Houdini, then I would be more supportive of Silver's view.

But Houdini dominates Rybka 4.

[tomgdrums]

Honestly, I am a bit surprised by all this. But also glad. Glad that people visit my site and enjoy chess, and glad that Chessdom actually dares to write an article like they have done.
If nothing else, it should spawn a great deal of discussion in our forums.

And also, I totally understand Albert Silver's viewpoint.

Well, if Rybka 4 scored 58% against Houdini, then I would be more supportive of Silver's view.

But Houdini dominates Rybka 4.

What? See now that is hypocrisy! You would support Albert's view ONLY if Rybka was stronger than Houdini? But somehow his point is incorrect because Houdini is stronger than Rybka?

That is hypocrisy at it's finest. Man, pick a point of view and stick with it because you think it is right, not because of which engine is stronger....

[notyetagm]

Honestly, I am a bit surprised by all this. But also glad. Glad that people visit my site and enjoy chess, and glad that Chessdom actually dares to write an article like they have done.
If nothing else, it should spawn a great deal of discussion in our forums.

And also, I totally understand Albert Silver's viewpoint.

Well, if Rybka 4 scored 58% against Houdini, then I would be more supportive of Silver's view.

But Houdini dominates Rybka 4.

What? See now that is hypocrisy! You would support Albert's view ONLY if Rybka was stronger than Houdini? But somehow his point is incorrect because Houdini is stronger than Rybka?

That is hypocrisy at it's finest. Man, pick a point of view and stick with it because you think it is right, not because of which engine is stronger....

My point is that this Houdini-Rybka game and Houdini's domination of the tournament are representative of Houdini's vast superiority.

There is nothing flukish about it.

[tomgdrums]

Honestly, I am a bit surprised by all this. But also glad. Glad that people visit my site and enjoy chess, and glad that Chessdom actually dares to write an article like they have done.
If nothing else, it should spawn a great deal of discussion in our forums.

And also, I totally understand Albert Silver's viewpoint.

Well, if Rybka 4 scored 58% against Houdini, then I would be more supportive of Silver's view.

But Houdini dominates Rybka 4.

What? See now that is hypocrisy! You would support Albert's view ONLY if Rybka was stronger than Houdini? But somehow his point is incorrect because Houdini is stronger than Rybka?

That is hypocrisy at it's finest. Man, pick a point of view and stick with it because you think it is right, not because of which engine is stronger....

My point is that this Houdini-Rybka game and Houdini's domination of the tournament are representative of Houdini's vast superiority.

There is nothing flukish about it.

On that I agree!! Houdini is obviously stronger than Rybka. I apologize if I misinterpreted your post.

[Howard E]

As a human I wouldn't go for the RR+6 vs RBN+5 with Nxa7 as Rybka did, as two minors tend to win these, especially when White has redundant majors. White's passed a-pawn (and then the b-pawn) ended up just being weaknesses, and after they were lost, it's going to be hard for White to hold on.

Rybka played poorly, as I explained in the chat at Chessbomb there were at least 3 doubtful decisions:
1) 16.Nxa7: Going into an inferior R+P v B+N ending. Rybka took more than 23 minutes for this decision, and produced a +0.24 eval which turned out to be completely wrong.
2) 21.a4 and 22.a5: Pushing the a-pawn too soon just created a weakness, as Black has an extra piece to attack it.
3) 26.b4: Pushing the b-pawn created a passed pawn for black on the c or d-file, just for free.

Houdini didn't have to do a lot, even the "little Stockfish" version that is running at Chessbomb for the in-game analysis would have won today.

Same thoughts here. At times the best policy to a game involves a "bunkering down" technique. The advance of the white a and b pawns do not fit that. Computers play "best" moves from their algorithms but
will there come a time when they are taught to "sense" danger and put up a solid defense that avoids apparent good moves (like advancing pawns or placing bishops on apparently good posts as in http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=859)

[notyetagm]

As a human I wouldn't go for the RR+6 vs RBN+5 with Nxa7 as Rybka did, as two minors tend to win these, especially when White has redundant majors. White's passed a-pawn (and then the b-pawn) ended up just being weaknesses, and after they were lost, it's going to be hard for White to hold on.

Rybka played poorly, as I explained in the chat at Chessbomb there were at least 3 doubtful decisions:
1) 16.Nxa7: Going into an inferior R+P v B+N ending. Rybka took more than 23 minutes for this decision, and produced a +0.24 eval which turned out to be completely wrong.
2) 21.a4 and 22.a5: Pushing the a-pawn too soon just created a weakness, as Black has an extra piece to attack it.
3) 26.b4: Pushing the b-pawn created a passed pawn for black on the c or d-file, just for free.

Houdini didn't have to do a lot, even the "little Stockfish" version that is running at Chessbomb for the in-game analysis would have won today.

What was the Houdini 1.5 eval of 16 Nb5xa7?! ?

Stockfish 2.0.1 on the chessbomb site gives it an eval of -0.36, a far cry from Rybka's dubious 0.24 eval.

Thanks

[Robert Houdart]

What was the Houdini 1.5 eval of 16 Nb5xa7?! ?
Stockfish 2.0.1 on the chessbomb site gives it an eval of -0.36, a far cry from Rybka's dubious 0.24 eval.

You can find that information at the TCEC web site, all the games are available for replay.
Rybka was at +0.24, Houdini at -0.32.