Guenther wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:14 am
This is the table after some cleaning up (not only the unterminated, but also the wrong game headers)
Game 1 which was still testing and was played with no opening moves at all still counts...
Andscacs instead of
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 h6 3. c3 vs. SF played from the start position and the testing game
was elevated to a real stage 2 game later.
The normally reversed opening pair for that game:
[Event "TESTING for Stage 2"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2018.09.17"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Andscacs 0.94"]
[Black "Stockfish 220818"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "3244"]
[BlackElo "3300"]
[ECO "C01"]
[TimeControl "900+5"]
[Time "10:23:16"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "118"]
1. e4 {+0.20/26 21}
1... e6 {-0.15/33 50}
2. d4 {+0.29/29 29}
2... d5 {-0.11/32 8}
3. exd5 {+0.27/29 67}
[Event "CCCC 1: Rapid Rumble Stage 2"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2018.09.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 220818"]
[Black "Andscacs 0.94"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "3439"]
[BlackElo "3300"]
[ECO "B27"]
[TimeControl "900+5"]
[Time "08:39:57"]
[Termination "normal"]
[PlyCount "147"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 h6 3. c3 {+0.77/32 50}
Code: Select all
CCCC 1: Rapid Rumble (15|5) Stage 2
Chess.com, 2018.09.17 - 2018.09.25
Average Rating: 3430 (Category 48)
Rtng Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Perf Chg
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Stockfish 220818 3439 51.0 / 70 XXXXXXXXXX =1=1=1=1=1 ===1=====1 ====1===== 1=1=1=1=11 11=11=1=1= =1=111===1 11=11111== 3596 +140 (+32 -0 =38)
2: Houdini 6.03 3439 42.0 / 69 =0=0=0=0=0 XXXXXXXXXX 1==1==01=. ========1= 1==1=1==== 11=11=1==1 =1===1=1=1 1=1=1===1= 3501 +55 (+21 -6 =42)
3: Komodo 2118.00 3439 38.5 / 69 ===0=====0 0==0==10=. XXXXXXXXXX ======0=01 1====1===1 1==101==== 1==1==1==1 1==1=1=1== 3465 +21 (+16 -8 =45)
4: Lc0 17.11089 3439 37.5 / 70 ====0===== ========0= ======1=10 XXXXXXXXXX ========10 =111=0==== 11====1=== 10====101= 3451 +7 (+12 -7 =51)
5: Ethereal 10.88 3404 31.0 / 70 0=0=0=0=00 0==0=0==== 0====0===0 ========01 XXXXXXXXXX ==0=0====1 ======1=== 1=1=10=11= 3386 -14 (+8 -16 =46)
6: Fire 7.1 3404 29.0 / 70 00=00=0=0= 00=00=0==0 0==010==== =000=1==== ==1=1====0 XXXXXXXXXX ===1=1=1== =====0=1== 3364 -35 (+8 -20 =42)
7: Booot 6.3.1 3439 25.5 / 70 =0=000===0 =0===0=0=0 0==0==0==0 00====0=== ======0=== ===0=0=0== XXXXXXXXXX ====1===== 3321 -119 (+1 -20 =49)
8: Andscacs 0.94 3439 24.5 / 70 00=00000== 0=0=0===0= 0==0=0=0== 01====010= 0=0=01=00= =====1=0== ====0===== XXXXXXXXXX 3310 -126 (+4 -25 =41)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
279 games: +79 -23 =177
I want to suggest the elo of LC0 somehow manages to match the elo of whatever it is playing against. Well, that's one "explanation" of its rather curious behaviour:
If one looks at the loss count of the second program, Houdini against the final ranking of its opponents, we get, as would be expected, an decreasing gradient: 5,1,0,0,0,0,0
Komodo gets: 2,3,2,0,1,0,0
Ethereal: 6,3,3,1,2,0,1
Fire: 6,6,3,3,1,0,1
Booot: 5,4,4,3,1,3,0
Andsacs: 7,4,4,3,5,1,1
Lc0 is different: 1,1,1,1,1,0,2, almost irrelevent who the opponent is, the loss rate remains almost constant.
Obviously, "non-losses", counting wins and draws together, shows the same pattern in reverse. Which suggests, well, to me, that LC0 doesn't really have an elo that can be mapped onto any particular opponent. It's not behaving itself properly according to the laws of elo ratings.