I ran yet a Nunn2 test at 40/40,40/20 sofar more equal games and stil one decisive win by... Firebird, but we will see.
Btw I found an interesting post on a test of Firebird on the CSS forum by Stefan Pohl, who has also opinions on this matter, with which I very much agree.
http://forum.computerschach.de/cgi-bin/ ... l?tid=2013
Stefan Pohl Datum 2010-01-20 08:02
A test of Firebird 1.0 beta x64 on 2.83GHz Quad (64-bit Vista Home Premium) against Rybka 3 mp x64, Stockfish 1.6 x64, Naum 4th
Each of 100 games with 2 '+2'' (without permanent brain, always count turns) with Noomen preset positions. In addition, Rybka and Naum on the 3.4 and 5 TBs on a fast USB stick (could access, including 512 MB of cache). Firebird has achieved the following results against the top 3:
Firebird 1.0 beta x64 - Rybka 3 mp x64: 59.5 - 40.5 (+33 -14 = 53)
Firebird 1.0 beta x64 - Stockfish 1.6 x64: 63.5 - 36.5 (+41 -14 = 45)
Firebird 1.0 beta x64 - Naum 4: 63.5 - 36.5 (+38 -11 = 51)
Average: 62.17% against an average Elozahl of 3169 (CEGT list 4 / 40). Thus an output of about 3258, so about 20 Elo before the 3rd runner Rybka
As I follow the whole Clone debate just from the sideline, I do not know from who Firebird should be cloned. At least not from his three previous opponents. Firebird is not only too strong, but also practice a different style of play. It was noticeable that Firebird more often than his three opponents chose near the end (of yes short reflection time) decided for another line, his opponents were in this respect much more stable. __This leaves me to conclude that Firebird can profit more from longer time control (or future hardware) than others could benefit_!.
Furthermore, it appeared to me that in the endgame there is still a lot to be gained. In the endgame Firebird was far superior to Rybka 3 and still a lot of games rotated one way or another a lot, and not due to the Tablebases, but in the early final phase.
Also not unimportant: Unlike Robbolit/Ippolit, Firebird 1.0 beta, not only uses all 4 cores, but also ran (for me) stable over the whole test range. For a beta not always so obvious, and in my case obviously not true for Robbolito / Ippolit. __Also, the use of multi-core seems to be quite efficient: If you connect from 4 to 3 cores, so the number of nodes is about 20-25% back, etc. .. __””