4th Amateur Championship D5 - your pick to win?

[Graham Banks]

4TH CCRL AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIP (Division 5)

Athlon XP1800+
Fritz 10 GUI
128mb hash each
3-4-5 piece tablebases
Ponder off
Xmas2640.ctg book (with 12 move CCRL limit)
40 moves in 75 minutes repeating (adapted for the CCRL 40/40)
2 cycles 30 rounds

The top three engines will gain promotion to Division 4 whereas the bottom five engines will go into a Qualifier where they will fight to retain their spots.

Updated versions will not be introduced during the tournament.

Participants

Natwarlal 1.14
Tornado 1.0
Averno 0.81
Zeus 1.29
Chispa 4.0.3
Adam 3.1
Pupsi 0.18
EveAnn 1.62
NagaSkaki 4.0
Gibbon 2.41a
Parrot 07.01.16
Rotor 0.1a
Lime 62
Flux 2.1
Joker 1.1.07
Neurosis 2.3




















The tournament can be followed and games downloaded round by round here:
http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/discussio ... php?t=2413

[Graham Banks]

I'll go for Averno.

[swami]

Based on my tournament,Pupsi,don't know about Averno,not tested it yet and by the Natwarlal version number should be 0.14 that is the latest,you have 1.14?

[hgm]

Difficult to say. They seem very closely matched. In my early testing (at 40/2) Joker seems to score 45%-55% against all of them. So if it is not too unlucky it should be able to hold on to its Division 5 spot, but not much more.

I go for Chispa, because of all mentioned engines it used to score best against the previous version of Joker (65% at 40/10).

[Uri Blass]

4TH CCRL AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIP (Division 5)

Athlon XP1800+
Fritz 10 GUI
128mb hash each
3-4-5 piece tablebases
Ponder off
Xmas2640.ctg book (with 12 move CCRL limit)
40 moves in 75 minutes repeating (adapted for the CCRL 40/40)
2 cycles 30 rounds

The top three engines will gain promotion to Division 4 whereas the bottom five engines will go into a Qualifier where they will fight to retain their spots.

Updated versions will not be introduced during the tournament.

Participants

Natwarlal 1.14
Tornado 1.0
Averno 0.81
Zeus 1.29
Chispa 4.0.3
Adam 3.1
Pupsi 0.18
EveAnn 1.62
NagaSkaki 4.0
Gibbon 2.41a
Parrot 07.01.16
Rotor 0.1a
Lime 62
Flux 2.1
Joker 1.1.07
Neurosis 2.3




















The tournament can be followed and games downloaded round by round here:
http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/discussio ... php?t=2413

Here are ccrl rating:

1)Natwarlal 0.14 2449 +71 −69 56.2% −51.3 19.2% 73
50.0%(upgraded to 1.14?)
2)Averno 0.81 2411 +53 −53 44.6% +36.5 28.1% 121
50.6%
3) Zeus 1.29 2410 +57 −56 53.8% −26.0 30.2% 106
52.0%
4) Tornado 1.0 2395 +46 −46 38.7% +90.3 23.6% 182
51.2%

5) Joker 1.1.06 2338 +122 −110 71.7% −152.6 16.7% 30
50.6% (updated to 1.1.07?)
6) Flux 2.1 2329 +128 −115 72.2% −153.9 18.5% 27
58.2%
7) Pupsi 0.18 2313 +84 −84 46.8% +16.3 29.8% 47
58.1%
8)NagaSkaki 4.00 2301 +88 −89 46.8% +29.4 17.0% 47
52.5%
9)Rotor 0.1a 2296 +66 −65 59.5% −70.2 21.4% 84
59.9%
10)EveAnn 1.62 2275 +52 −51 52.3% −17.1 27.7% 130
51.0%
11)Neurosis 2.3 2273 +110 −105 62.1% −93.2 27.6% 29
53.8%
12)Parrot 07.01.16 2235 +53 −54 43.1% +49.6 17.6% 131
54.2%
13)Adam 3.1 2231 +52 −53 41.6% +62.2 11.5% 148
51.0%
14)Lime 62 2230 +50 −51 46.5% +28.1 22.0% 141
55.2%
15)Gibbon 2.01b 2225 +62 −64 33.6% +150.0 13.1% 122
56.1%

could not find Chispa 4.0.3

[Andres Valverde]

I really hope that EveAnn would be above the 4 bottom ranks..but tough tourney anyway. My favourite is Chispa.

[hgm]

Yes, Joker appears in a new version, that fixes a bug in the LMR code present in 1.1.06. (Non-captures of non-pawns were reduced on a random basis, while the intention was to always reduce them.)

I don't really know if 1.1.07 is better than 1.1.06 (I am still testing it), although it seems likely that it is. (I don't see how it could ever be good to take random reduction decisions.)

[Uri Blass]

Yes, Joker appears in a new version, that fixes a bug in the LMR code present in 1.1.06. (Non-captures of non-pawns were reduced on a random basis, while the intention was to always reduce them.)

I don't really know if 1.1.07 is better than 1.1.06 (I am still testing it), although it seems likely that it is. (I don't see how it could ever be good to take random reduction decisions.)

If reduction is justified but
you reduce too much then it is possible that random reduction is better
than reducing always.

Uri

[hgm]

Yes, but I already know that the random reduction is slightly better than never reducing. So it seems to like the reductions when it decides to apply them. I think that would make it really strange if it did not like them anymore when I always apply those same reductions.

But we will see. As the saying goes, the proof of an engine is in the mating...

[Uri Blass]

Yes, but I already know that the random reduction is slightly better than never reducing. So it seems to like the reductions when it decides to apply them. I think that would make it really strange if it did not like them anymore when I always apply those same reductions.

But we will see. As the saying goes, the proof of an engine is in the mating...

Some comments:

1)You do not know if the reductions are productive at CCRL 40/40 time control and you could have only enough games at blitz.

2)The fact that you know that the reduction is productive in blitz does not mean that you do not reduce too much.

It is possible that the optimal reduction is reducing 2/3 plies when reducing 1 ply is better than not reducing.

In that case I can imagine that a random reduction can be better than reducing 1 ply.

Uri