By the way, one big improvement in Houdini 3 is the so-called "tactical mode".
What it means?
It means that one can prepare Houdini 3 for highly tactical positions just by checking the option "tactical mode" in the engine parameters menu before doing an analysis.
According to some testers, it solves tactical studies up to 30 per cents better (and faster) than the Houdini 3 in classical mode. These results rank the engine among the best ones in tactics.
I often try this option in my correspondence chess tries. And I can say I'm very impressed by the results, too.. 
Meanwhile, some testers ran matches between Houdini 3 and Houdini 3 "tactical mode". What is amazing is that Houdini 3 "tactical mode" is just a bit weaker in playing strength. Usually, engines don't play very well in tactical mode, because they're somehow "twisted" in parameters. Not Houdini 3 "tactical mode" though. Still it can win a match against any of the best engines available. 

That's impressive! My humble Houdini 1a takes fully 5.75 seconds!

GMTonyKosten wrote on 12/17/12 at 21:20:34:


I'm not surprised at all..
Maybe, as a correspondence chess player, I'm addicted too much to my beloved engine ...but, if Houdini 1.5a is as faster as Houdini 3 and can reach the same ply's depth for the same amount of time...I would never even try to use the new toy called Houdini 3. 
The problem is that a good analysis is taking time, too much time.. One too many sleepless nights..
And I have my own conclusions I can share. For example, I never believe Houdini 3's evaluation in a complex position if not reached at least 27-28th ply's depth.. While 1.5a version's evaluation on 26th ply's depth is almost definitive. The only problem I find in Houdini 1.5a is that its style of play is not as dynamic as Houdini 3's one. Hence the difference in ELO points.. 

GMTonyKosten wrote on 12/01/12 at 14:09:29:



Houdini is not better always.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 12/01/12 at 12:14:50:

You can see the rating lists from the most respectable testing groups here:
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/
http://inwoba.de/index.html

...and a little private blitz test under the following (hardware/software/settings) conditions:

Intel Core i7-3930K 3.20Ghz @ 4.77 GHz 16.0 GB RAM
Windows 7 Professional SP 1
Fritz Benchmark:
Speed: 42.96
KNS: 20619
GUI: CB-Fritz 13
Book: Perfect 2012 - 7 moves
Hash:128
GRT-RB-TB: ON
Ponder: OFF
Blitz 5m 0

...finished as listed here:
1   Houdini 3 Pro x64    +308  +75/=21/-4 85.50%   85.5/100
2   Deep HIARCS 14      -308  +4/=21/-75 14.50%   14.5/100

...and the games can be downloaded from:
http://www.mediafire.com/?b9nimawf8nigrgz

The results speak for themselves.. H3 is better, faster...and so on.. As for the analysis purpose (and here we go again) I think the margin is not such wide.. Almost every high level engine can do a proper analysis with a little help of the device that is controlling the mouse buttons.. 

Robert Houdart:
"The 3 matches have now finished.

Houdini 3 - Komodo 5 match: +43 -19 =58
72-48 (+68 Elo ± 42 Elo).

Houdini 3 - Stockfish 2.3.1 match: +44 -16 =60
74-46 (+82 Elo ± 42 Elo).

Houdini 3 - Houdini 2.0c match: +48 -15 =57
76.5-43.5 (+94 Elo ± 42 Elo).

Download All the Games (single zip containing the 3 matches) at: http://www.cruxis.com/download/Houdini3_LongTC_Matches.zip

Over-all result: Houdini 3 scored 61.8% (+81 Elo ± 24 Elo) against the average of Houdini 2.0c, Komodo 5 and Stockfish 2.3.1.
The individual match results have very large confidence intervals, please consider these when discussing results."

tony37 wrote on 09/26/12 at 13:08:45:

It was fixed in 2.0 version.