Hi all,
our actual rating lists are online and can be found under the attached links.
40 / 20:
New games: 1099 ; 27 different engines
Total: 583.226
NEW Engines
55 Stockfish 2.2.2 w32 1CPU: 2934 - 350 games (startrating is close to version 2.01)
816 DoubleCheck 3.1 x64: 2365 - 443 games (new here and about 10 points behind the blitz-result with version 3.0)
UPDATES
...not much differences:
386 Texel 1.01 x64: 2650 - 1174 games (+1)
646 RedQueen 1.1.1 x64 1CPU: 2472 - 656 games (some more games played with not so good results - name will be corrected later)
40 / 4:
New games: 5456
All games now: 1.001.760!!! - a jublilee!!!
New Engines
351 Texel 1.01 x64 1CPU: 2638 - 1000 games (much better than CuckooChess here too of course)
425 Texel 1.01 w32 1CPU: 2599 - 1300 games (39 points under 64bit-version)
883 Cheese 1.4 x64: 2317 - 1000 games (+90 to version 1.3b)
793 DoubleCheck 3.0 x64: 2377 - 1000 games (+160 to version 2.4)
Updates
51 Stockfish 2.2.2 w32 1CPU: 2923 - 1500 games (-3)
833 Zarkov 5 (MCS): 2352 - 1000 games (+5)
1048 LittleThought 1.04 w32: 2163 - 1000 games (-1)
40/120
See here our new single-list (with 7800 games):
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn//40120n ... liste.html
New is Zappa Mexico II x64 with 2721/150 games.
Stockfish 2.2.2 x64 lost 8 points and Deep Junior 13 x64 lost 16:
Naum 4.2 x64: +4
40/20 pb=on
Our new list raises fast. We now have made 4000 games.
New is Chiron 1.1a x64 with 2822/520 games.
http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating4020PBON.htm
A big „Thank you“ to all testers as usual!!
Links
40/20: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm
Blitz: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/blitz.htm
40/120: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
Tester: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/testers/testers.htm
40/20 pb=on: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating4020PBON.htm
Games of the week: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... on/gow.jpg
Werner Schuele
CEGT-Team
CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 2871
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:09 pm
- Location: Germany
- Full name: Werner Schüle
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
One question regarding your two 40/20 lists (regular and pb on): I would like to know whether the komodo ratings would differ much if you separated games played with sse4 from those played without. We appear to be about 30 elo away from Houdini (talking 1 core) on both lists (averaging Houdini 1.5 and 2.0 since 1.5 is higher), but perhaps the gap is narrower if only sse4 games are considered. Since I estimate we have gained 25 elo since K4, I'm wondering if we might have finally caught or passed Houdini on sse4 machines.
-
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:03 pm
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
Thanks !
Gab
Gab
-
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 am
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
Larry, you really should stop worrying about catching Houdini 1.5 or 2.lkaufman wrote:One question regarding your two 40/20 lists (regular and pb on): I would like to know whether the komodo ratings would differ much if you separated games played with sse4 from those played without. We appear to be about 30 elo away from Houdini (talking 1 core) on both lists (averaging Houdini 1.5 and 2.0 since 1.5 is higher), but perhaps the gap is narrower if only sse4 games are considered. Since I estimate we have gained 25 elo since K4, I'm wondering if we might have finally caught or passed Houdini on sse4 machines.
In case you don't follow the Houdini Facebook page, our current Houdini development version is about 60 Elo stronger than Houdini 1.5 - with an increasing trend at longer longer time controls.
Robert
-
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:11 pm
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
.......... ..........Houdini wrote:lkaufman wrote:One question regarding your two 40/20 lists (regular and pb on): I would like to know whether the komodo ratings would differ much if you separated games played with sse4 from those played without. We appear to be about 30 elo away from Houdini (talking 1 core) on both lists (averaging Houdini 1.5 and 2.0 since 1.5 is higher), but perhaps the gap is narrower if only sse4 games are considered. Since I estimate we have gained 25 elo since K4, I'm wondering if we might have finally caught or passed Houdini on sse4 machines.
Larry, you really should stop worrying about catching Houdini 1.5 or 2.
In case you don't follow the Houdini Facebook page, our current Houdini development version is about 60 Elo stronger than Houdini 1.5 - with an increasing trend at longer longer time controls.
Robert
-
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:03 pm
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
Please Robert, do not launch an Houdini stronger than 2.0c version... not now !
All engine chess rooms are full of Houdini everywhere
Please think about diversity
Kidding
All engine chess rooms are full of Houdini everywhere
Please think about diversity
Kidding
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
Well, you were clearly wrong in claiming that H2 was stronger than H1.5 (except in blitz or using multi-cores), so maybe you will again be proven wrong. Your claim of +60 over H1.5 and +40 over H2 is already suspicious, unless you are talking about blitz, since (40 + 0 = 60) is false.
In any case, I think it is desirable for any commercial program to be stronger than any free one, so passing h1.5 (and thereby also h2 in case you make that free eventually) is important for all commercial programs regardless of whether a later commercial engine is stronger than others.
In any case, I think it is desirable for any commercial program to be stronger than any free one, so passing h1.5 (and thereby also h2 in case you make that free eventually) is important for all commercial programs regardless of whether a later commercial engine is stronger than others.
-
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 am
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
It will be my pleasure to ease your suspicious mind at the time of the Houdini 3 release.lkaufman wrote:Well, you were clearly wrong in claiming that H2 was stronger than H1.5 (except in blitz or using multi-cores), so maybe you will again be proven wrong. Your claim of +60 over H1.5 and +40 over H2 is already suspicious, unless you are talking about blitz, since (40 + 0 = 60) is false.
-
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:11 pm
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
lkaufman wrote:Well, you were clearly wrong in claiming that H2 was stronger than H1.5 (except in blitz or using multi-cores), so maybe you will again be proven wrong. Your claim of +60 over H1.5 and +40 over H2 is already suspicious, unless you are talking about blitz, since (40 + 0 = 60) is false.
In any case, I think it is desirable for any commercial program to be stronger than any free one, so passing h1.5 (and thereby also h2 in case you make that free eventually) is important for all commercial programs regardless of whether a later commercial engine is stronger than others.
Well, SedatChess, Frank Quisinksky gave +20 and Vincent Lejeune list give +9
And btw Komodo 4 above 3 on Vincent Lejeune list = + 11 where you claimed to have +25 before release
Code: Select all
http://sedat-chess.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_8
+20
Rank Name Elo + - games score oppo. draws
01 Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 4c 3358 25 24 430 63% 3272 47%
02 Houdini 1.5a x64 4c 3338 17 17 863 62% 3264 49%
http://www.amateurschach.de/main/_swcr-all.txt
+20
NAME / version of engine ELO + - GAM SC OP DR
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1 Houdini 2.0c x64 3019 18 18 1400 79% 2777 28%
- 2 Houdini 1.5 x64 2999 14 14 2320 78% 2772 29%
http://home.scarlet.be/vincentlejeune/rating20120402.txt
+9
2 Houdini 2.0 64-bit 4CPU 3303 12 12 2833 76% 3102 32%
3 Houdini 1.5 64-bit 4CPU 3294 10 10 3386 72% 3140 37%
-
- Posts: 5960
- Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: CEGT - rating lists April 08th 2012
I acknowledge that Houdini 2 had improved MP scaling over 1.5. I'm talking about the single core performance. The combined results other than blitz show Houdini 2 to be below 1.5 (marginally).beram wrote:lkaufman wrote:Well, you were clearly wrong in claiming that H2 was stronger than H1.5 (except in blitz or using multi-cores), so maybe you will again be proven wrong. Your claim of +60 over H1.5 and +40 over H2 is already suspicious, unless you are talking about blitz, since (40 + 0 = 60) is false.
In any case, I think it is desirable for any commercial program to be stronger than any free one, so passing h1.5 (and thereby also h2 in case you make that free eventually) is important for all commercial programs regardless of whether a later commercial engine is stronger than others.
Well, SedatChess, Frank Quisinksky gave +20 and Vincent Lejeune list give +9
And btw Komodo 4 above 3 on Vincent Lejeune list = + 11 where you claimed to have +25 before release
Code: Select all
http://sedat-chess.110mb.com/index.php?p=1_8 +20 Rank Name Elo + - games score oppo. draws 01 Houdini 2.0 Pro x64 4c 3358 25 24 430 63% 3272 47% 02 Houdini 1.5a x64 4c 3338 17 17 863 62% 3264 49% http://www.amateurschach.de/main/_swcr-all.txt +20 NAME / version of engine ELO + - GAM SC OP DR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 1 Houdini 2.0c x64 3019 18 18 1400 79% 2777 28% - 2 Houdini 1.5 x64 2999 14 14 2320 78% 2772 29% http://home.scarlet.be/vincentlejeune/rating20120402.txt +9 2 Houdini 2.0 64-bit 4CPU 3303 12 12 2833 76% 3102 32% 3 Houdini 1.5 64-bit 4CPU 3294 10 10 3386 72% 3140 37%