Scaling

[Rebel]

Code: Select all

ccrl                            40/4   40/40    elo
Komodo 9.2 64-bit 4CPU          3406    3353    -53
Komodo 9.1 64-bit 4CPU          3375    3326    -49

Stockfish 6 64-bit 4CPU         3386    3311    -75
Stockfish 5 64-bit 4CPU         3362    3283    -79

Gull 3 64-bit 4CPU              3263    3198    -65
Gull 2.8b 64-bit 4CPU           3252    3194    -58

Based on this shorty, can you conclude Komodo scales best and that Stockfish from the 3 scales worst?

[BBauer]

Based on this shorty, can you conclude that shorter time control lead to higher rating?
kind regards
Bernhard

[Rebel]

Based on this shorty, can you conclude that shorter time control lead to higher rating?
kind regards
Bernhard

That's for the CCRL guys to explain.

[Rebel]

Code: Select all

ccrl                            40/4   40/40    elo
Komodo 9.2 64-bit 4CPU          3406    3353    -53
Komodo 9.1 64-bit 4CPU          3375    3326    -49

Stockfish 6 64-bit 4CPU         3386    3311    -75
Stockfish 5 64-bit 4CPU         3362    3283    -79

Gull 3 64-bit 4CPU              3263    3198    -65
Gull 2.8b 64-bit 4CPU           3252    3194    -58

Based on this shorty, can you conclude Komodo scales best and that Stockfish from the 3 scales worst?

I don't understand what you mean. Scaling is within one version, not between two, isn't it?

Komodo loss in elo -53 | -49
Gull -65 | -58
SF -75 | - 79

[Gurcan Uckardes]

It's known Komodo scales better than SF. Ed mentioned the scaling vs time. There's also an SMP efficiency issue which favors Komodo.
But SF team looks like finding a cure soon. Check here: http://www.fastgm.de/threads5.html

[BubbaTough]

Code: Select all

ccrl                            40/4   40/40    elo
Komodo 9.2 64-bit 4CPU          3406    3353    -53
Komodo 9.1 64-bit 4CPU          3375    3326    -49

Stockfish 6 64-bit 4CPU         3386    3311    -75
Stockfish 5 64-bit 4CPU         3362    3283    -79

Gull 3 64-bit 4CPU              3263    3198    -65
Gull 2.8b 64-bit 4CPU           3252    3194    -58

Based on this shorty, can you conclude Komodo scales best and that Stockfish from the 3 scales worst?

Code: Select all

Hannibal 1.5 64-bit 4CPU	3153    3113     -40
Hannibal 1.4b 64-bit 4CPU  3113    3092     -21

[Rebel]

Code: Select all

ccrl                            40/4   40/40    elo
Komodo 9.2 64-bit 4CPU          3406    3353    -53
Komodo 9.1 64-bit 4CPU          3375    3326    -49

Stockfish 6 64-bit 4CPU         3386    3311    -75
Stockfish 5 64-bit 4CPU         3362    3283    -79

Gull 3 64-bit 4CPU              3263    3198    -65
Gull 2.8b 64-bit 4CPU           3252    3194    -58

Based on this shorty, can you conclude Komodo scales best and that Stockfish from the 3 scales worst?

Code: Select all

Hannibal 1.5 64-bit 4CPU	3153    3113     -40
Hannibal 1.4b 64-bit 4CPU  3113    3092     -21

Cool numbers.

Mine are in the 80's, the good old days so to say

I am currently trying improve here.

[BubbaTough]

Cool numbers.

Mine are in the 80's, the good old days so to say

I am currently trying improve here.

I was chatting with Fabien about this kind of thing when Senpai came out. He noticed Senpai was better than Hannibal at fast games, but in long games Hannibal was better. Early on I found some search related stuff that hurt performance at most reasonable test time controls, but helped at longer games (like 5 minutes or over). This was very painful to confirm with any statistical significance, but I eventually did. I believe some categories of endgame knowledge can be like that as well. There is a lot to be said for the modern trend of fast test time controls, but I think there is still fertile ground to be explored in techniques whose benefits are hard to measure except in long games.