MYG
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:29 am
Re: MYG
Laskos wrote:Thank you very much Ingo. Impressive results, and my ELO predictions were pretty accurate (aside the last, where I missed a couple of ELO points). Congratulations to Robert![/quoteIWB wrote:Hello all,
most of you guessed right - but as this is a Houdini pre release version it will not be included officially in my list.
Nonetheless here is how it would look like:
and as a comparision this is the current list:Code: Select all
# PLAYER : RATING ERROR (%) D(%) OppAvg CFS(next) POINTS W D L PLAYED 1 NEW : 3343 10 81.7% 30.3 3059 100 2694.5 2195 999 106 3300 2 Komodo 11.2.2 : 3313 10 78.9% 34.5 3061 98 2604.0 2034 1140 126 3300 3 Stockfish 8 : 3298 10 77.4% 39.1 3062 100 2555.5 1910 1291 99 3300 4 Shredder 13 : 3119 8 56.3% 50.7 3074 100 1859.5 1023 1673 604 3300 5 Fizbo 1.9 : 3069 8 49.7% 42.9 3078 96 1640.0 932 1416 952 3300 6 Ginkgo 2.0 : 3059 8 48.3% 49.8 3078 70 1593.0 772 1642 886 3300 7 Gull 3 : 3056 8 47.8% 47.9 3078 100 1579.0 788 1582 930 3300 8 Booot 6.2 : 3025 8 43.7% 50.6 3080 57 1442.5 608 1669 1023 3300 9 Jonny 8.00 : 3024 7 43.6% 46.4 3081 65 1438.0 672 1532 1096 3300 10 Andscacs 0.90 : 3022 8 43.3% 45.3 3081 100 1428.5 681 1495 1124 3300 11 Equinox 3.30 : 3004 8 40.8% 47.9 3082 97 1348.0 558 1580 1162 3300 12 Critter 1.6a : 2993 8 39.4% 47.2 3083 50 1300.0 522 1556 1222 3300 13 Chiron 4 : 2993 9 39.4% 45.3 3083 51 1300.0 553 1494 1253 3300 14 Fritz 15 : 2993 8 39.4% 47.2 3083 100 1299.5 520 1559 1221 3300 15 Nirvanachess 2.4 : 2964 8 35.6% 44.9 3085 90 1175.5 434 1483 1383 3300 16 Hannibal 1.7 : 2956 8 34.6% 44.2 3085 --- 1142.5 413 1459 1428 3300
I am impressed, I did not expect that result!Code: Select all
# PLAYER : RATING ERROR (%) D(%) OppAvg CFS(next) POINTS W D L PLAYED 1 Komodo 11.2.2 : 3315 10 79.5% 34.7 3059 99 2625.0 2053 1144 103 3300 2 Stockfish 8 : 3299 10 78.0% 39.7 3060 99 2573.0 1918 1310 72 3300 3 Houdini 5.01 : 3281 10 76.2% 39.2 3061 100 2514.0 1868 1292 140 3300 4 Shredder 13 : 3120 8 56.8% 51.8 3072 100 1875.0 1021 1708 571 3300 5 Fizbo 1.9 : 3070 8 50.0% 43.4 3075 94 1651.0 935 1432 933 3300 6 Ginkgo 2.0 : 3062 8 48.8% 50.8 3075 81 1611.0 772 1678 850 3300 7 Gull 3 : 3056 8 48.1% 48.3 3076 100 1587.0 790 1594 916 3300 8 Booot 6.2 : 3028 8 44.2% 51.5 3078 68 1458.5 608 1701 991 3300 9 Jonny 8.00 : 3025 8 43.8% 46.9 3078 66 1446.5 672 1549 1079 3300 10 Andscacs 0.90 : 3023 8 43.5% 45.6 3078 100 1436.0 684 1504 1112 3300 11 Equinox 3.30 : 3006 8 41.2% 48.4 3079 96 1358.0 560 1596 1144 3300 12 Fritz 15 : 2995 8 39.7% 47.9 3080 55 1311.0 520 1582 1198 3300 13 Chiron 4 : 2994 8 39.6% 45.8 3080 58 1307.5 551 1513 1236 3300 14 Critter 1.6a : 2993 8 39.5% 47.4 3080 100 1302.5 520 1565 1215 3300 15 Nirvanachess 2.4 : 2967 8 36.0% 45.6 3082 87 1187.0 434 1506 1360 3300 16 Hannibal 1.7 : 2960 8 35.1% 44.9 3082 --- 1157.0 416 1482 1402 3300
I hope you enjoyed the run as much as I did
Ingo
PS: FYI: a 1 month old SF dev was below that in my setup
give some congratulations to open source sf too. i call this as houdifish 6
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: MYG
Well, I will not enter these issues, as I might wrongly say that all of the very top engines must have "fish" termination.stavros wrote:
give some congratulations to open source sf too. i call this as houdifish 6
-
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:47 pm
Re: MYG
On TCEC Houdini 5 was beaten by 54% against Stockfish 8( short sample )Laskos wrote:At this time control on one core Houdini seems stronger than the best SF dev. But TCEC is a bit different, hard to say.Nordlandia wrote:Kai Laskos: Is new Houdini on par or superior to SF9 Dev?
On fast.gm Houdini was beaten 51% on 1 core and 1 hour time control by Stockfish 8
Maybe we could guess Stockfish 8 is slighty better than Houdini 5 in TCEC condition.
So, this Houdini win barely Stockfish 8, probably loose against Stockfish dev and has to play in TCEC condition where he might be slighty below as well.
So the goal to be the absolute best is not totally achevied here. Still a good update, because it seems closer than Stockfish than last time.
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: MYG
A year ago I posted this as a joke:Laskos wrote:Well, I will not enter these issues, as I might wrongly say that all of the very top engines must have "fish" termination.stavros wrote:
give some congratulations to open source sf too. i call this as houdifish 6
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 5&start=53
Laskos wrote:If Stockfish continues it this current manner, it is very possible the improvement of many very strong engines will look like that:mehmet karaman wrote:Shredder 160625 isn't as strong as Stockfish and Komodo but Shredder 160625 is +300 elo stronger than Shredder 12.Ozymandias wrote:How many wins against SF and Komodo, in these two tournaments + the last one from December?mehmet karma wrote:The performance of Shredder is really wonderful
+300 elo progress at 18 months is incredible. Shredder can reach the level of Komodo and Houdini next year.
The improvement would hardly be in this case linear on entire span, and overcoming Stockfish is a bit in another paradigm.
-
- Posts: 1346
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2014 1:47 pm
Re: MYG
Lyudmil, Houdini doesn't use contempt anymore. I know you still think it does in his way, but I disagree.
Also, it is better to have Houdini 6 close to Stockfish than Houdini not updated. Also, Komodo is cloosing the gap and that's better than having Stockfish alone better than the others two engines by ~50-80 elo like it was for a while, until Houdini 5 and until his progress slowed down.
So of course, you wanted a much better engine or a total new one, like we all, but it is to me far better than nothing, than not having a better Houdini.
Also, it is better to have Houdini 6 close to Stockfish than Houdini not updated. Also, Komodo is cloosing the gap and that's better than having Stockfish alone better than the others two engines by ~50-80 elo like it was for a while, until Houdini 5 and until his progress slowed down.
So of course, you wanted a much better engine or a total new one, like we all, but it is to me far better than nothing, than not having a better Houdini.
-
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:00 am
Re: MYG
Thank you, Ingo, for running the test! It was fun to watch.
But maybe not sufficiently taking into account the error margins on the individual results - with 200 games it must be like ±30 Elo. With only 2 or 3 data points on the right side of the diagram, the slope of your line is pretty uncertain.
But it's not nearly as straightforward as you think. While engines have many high-level similarities, the low level differences usually are too big for any of the SF improvement ideas or "patches" to be applicable or useful for other engines.
A top engine got improved by 50 to 60 Elo in 10 months, and your contribution is... a rant?Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:it already starts getting annoying: having 3 top engines for 5 years at fully or almost fully the same strength: for how long could that continue?
You made some pretty astute predictions.Laskos wrote:Thank you very much Ingo. Impressive results, and my ELO predictions were pretty accurate (aside the last, where I missed a couple of ELO points). Congratulations to Robert!
But maybe not sufficiently taking into account the error margins on the individual results - with 200 games it must be like ±30 Elo. With only 2 or 3 data points on the right side of the diagram, the slope of your line is pretty uncertain.
Undoubtedly without SF all engines (including Houdini and Komodo) would be weaker, maybe by 100 points.stavros wrote:give some congratulations to open source sf too. i call this as houdifish 6
But it's not nearly as straightforward as you think. While engines have many high-level similarities, the low level differences usually are too big for any of the SF improvement ideas or "patches" to be applicable or useful for other engines.