I have managed to measure the speed increase between Ivanhoe and Houdini. Houdini has a speed advantage of almost 2000 kN/s. If you can make Ivanhoe as fast as Houdini + with its new time management, I am sure it would be able to surpass Houdini. 
Code: Select all
1 Houdini 1.5 x64 3190 +7/-5/=8 55.00% 11.0/20
2 IvanHoe 0B.01.09 x64 3190 +5/-7/=8 45.00% 9.0/20
Not quite. There are several reasons Houdini is much stronger; better eval, search (pruning), and SMP implementation -- which also contribute to the speed difference. All I did was changed 2 lines of code and that won't be enough...Damir Desevac wrote:
It's not very useful to compare node speeds between different engines, each engine has its own metric of "node speed".Damir Desevac wrote:
Code: Select all
1 Houdini 1.5 x64 3190 +10/-3/=17 61.67% 18.5/30
2 IvanHoe 0B.01.09 x64 3190 +3/-10/=17 38.33% 11.5/30
Thanks for these -- I am getting similar results at 15+10 with current standing, +10/=10/-3. After the first few games, Houdini's chess engine pattern learning (CEPL) feature engaged full throttle.robbolito wrote:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 870 @ 2.93GHz 8.0 GB Memory
Windows 7 Home Premium Edition (Build 7600) 64 bit
Fritz Benchmark:
Speed: 13.09
KNS: 6280
GUI: Rybka 3
Book: Powerbook 2011-10 moves
Hash:256
RB and GTB: ON
Ponder: OFF
Blitz: 15.0
Code: Select all
1 Houdini 1.5 x64 3190 +10/-3/=17 61.67% 18.5/30 2 IvanHoe 0B.01.09 x64 3190 +3/-10/=17 38.33% 11.5/30
Hi,kingliveson wrote:Houdini's chess engine pattern learning (CEPL) feature
ernest wrote:Hi,kingliveson wrote:Houdini's chess engine pattern learning (CEPL) feature
Never heard about that...
Do you have more details, or links?
OK, I'll phrase that differently:kingliveson wrote:You'll have to ask Robert
)Laskos wrote:Yes, Houdini 1.5 has pattern recognition and learning from previous versions games against all the engines. It uses adaptive Monte Carlo with multidimensional parameter adapter specific to each engine it's playing. If you give Houdini 1.5 a new position to analyze, its level is much lower than Rybka 4, which is known to have the best analysis of the new positions. Sorry, new positions are not the realm of non-Rybka 4 engines.overtond wrote:Hi Robert,
Without going in to technical feedback {that I for one would not understand} have you written the code so that H1.5 makes use of previous analysis? I ask as I have read in many places that when H1.5 is used to play against other engines it is very strong in terms of results obtained, however, when a position is offered to H1.5 such that no previous information was available, the difference between H1.5 and other top engines {for example, R4} is less significant.
Is this something you are aware of?
ATB
David
Kai