I'm not sure I understand the question. Stockfish 1.7 has won 53.25% of its games against Rybka 3, after 768 games.
Jeremy
No
Most of the games are not against rybka3
so far Stockfish scored 45 points out of 86 games against rybka(there are also games against other engines)
STOCK17_1
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Rybka 3 mp (2907) 45.0 - 41.0 52.33% Perf=2923
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Naum 4.2 (2823) 51.5 - 34.5 59.88% Perf=2892
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Deep Shredder 12 (2801) 58.0 - 29.0 66.67% Perf=2921
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Komodo64 1.0 JA (2781) 57.0 - 29.0 66.28% Perf=2898
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Zappa Mexico II (2709) 65.0 - 21.0 75.58% Perf=2905
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Protector 1.3.2 JA (2698) 68.5 - 17.5 79.65% Perf=2935
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Onno-1-1-1 (2682) 62.0 - 24.0 72.09% Perf=2846
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Spark-0.3 VC(a) (2672) 69.0 - 17.0 80.23% Perf=2915
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Deep Sjeng WC2008 (2671) 67.5 - 18.5 78.49% Perf=2895
Stockfish 1.7 JA - Toga II 1.4 beta5c BB (2661) 68.5 - 17.5 79.65% Perf=2898
612.0 - 249.0 71.08% Perf=2896
861 out of 1000 games played
Ah, ok, sorry, I misinterpreted the result. I don't think that this makes the result any more accurate, though, probably less, but I'm (clearly) not an expert.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I'm guessing they are currently trying to find the optimal parameters for those techniques, and I'd expect the next version to take a big leap.
Tord and his silly understatements. I'm reading +80 ELO over 1.6.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I'm guessing they are currently trying to find the optimal parameters for those techniques, and I'd expect the next version to take a big leap.
Tord and his silly understatements. I'm reading +80 ELO over 1.6.
In our internal tests we had much less. I can even tell you that we had a discussion regarding to call it 1.7 or 2.0 (due to deep changes in evaluation) and at the end we chose 1.7 because we thought that the ELO gain was not enough to justify a 2.0
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:Tord and his silly understatements. I'm reading +80 ELO over 1.6.
We did not make any understatements. As Marco pointed out, our own test results were nowhere near that impressive. The explanation could be that we have been lucky and stumbled upon improvements which give more at slower time controls (we only use super-fast games in our tests), or that Stockfish has been lucky and overperformed somewhat in Ingo's games so far, or perhaps a combination of both.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I'm guessing they are currently trying to find the optimal parameters for those techniques, and I'd expect the next version to take a big leap.
Tord and his silly understatements. I'm reading +80 ELO over 1.6.
Just wait to the next list
Maybe you are going to see +800 elo
Seriously, I will not be surprised if we see +100 elo over 1.7 in the next release.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I'm guessing they are currently trying to find the optimal parameters for those techniques, and I'd expect the next version to take a big leap.
Tord and his silly understatements. I'm reading +80 ELO over 1.6.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I'm guessing they are currently trying to find the optimal parameters for those techniques, and I'd expect the next version to take a big leap.
Tord and his silly understatements. I'm reading +80 ELO over 1.6.
The results seem to be especially good at single core testing, maybe helped by ponder on in Ingo's list. But from other people we can read remarks that the engine is not doing as well as they expect from these results, and this usually seems to be with Stockfish using more cores. So that may be due to the HT detection bug but not everyone has HT, Larry's quad for instance does not. So I think it is not certain how Stockfish performs on more threads. Just so people do not expect too much. It should do fine for IDEa but there seem to be problems in Aquarium with core settings too.
Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
If everybody else is making good progress and this knowledge is in the public domain what makes you believe Rybka will remain static? Are'nt you forgetting that Vas was two years ago where these engines are today and he never stood still? Or do you know something we dont?
If everybody else is making good progress and this knowledge is in the public domain what makes you believe Rybka will remain static? Are'nt you forgetting that Vas was two years ago where these engines are today and he never stood still? Or do you know something we dont?
I'm pretty sure Dr. Wael has seen that, as have most of us. The problem is that it is not credible. Lukas is a nice person, but is only loosely affiliated with the Rybka team. Even if Vas himself has said he's making "good progress", that's so vague it means nothing.
