Test programs

[xr_a_y]

Thanks for this test!
200Elo looks quite ok between Xiphos and Minic+NoisyNotch.

[lkaufman]

Match Dragon 2 x64 vs Fat Fritz 2.1 x64 (all original engines)

Match result 0 - 15 - 85 (100 games)


The match was played on the following equipment:

Processor - Intel Core i7 870
Hard disc - Samsung SSD 860 PRO 1 TB
Memory of frames - 16 GB DDR3 1333
System - Windows 10 64 bit Pro

During the match, the opening book was not used, time for the game - 5 minutes + 3 seconds. I have used 6-men Syzygy table bases. The match was played on the GUI Cutochess 1.2 by Guenther Simon.

Setting the engines during the game.

Dragon 2 x64
Protocol=uci
Hash=1024
Threads=4
Contempt=8
Overhead ms=100
SyzygyPath=D:/Syzygy
Time Usage=0
Table Memory=128
Syzygy Probe Limit=6
Syzygy Probe Depth=2
Smart Syzygy=false
OwnBook=false
Ponder=false

Fat Fritz 2.1 x64
Protocol=uci
Hash=1024
Threads=4
Contempt=24
Move Overhead=10
MultiPV=1
Syzygy50MoveRule=On
SyzygyPath=D:/Syzygy
SyzygyProbeLimit=6
SyzygyProbeDepth=2
Use NNUE=On
Eval File=FatFritz2_v1.bin

Parties of the match Dragon 2 vs Fat Fritz 2.1 - https://www.sendspace.com/file/i13lgl

Fat Fritz 2.1 uses a GPU, Dragon does not. What GPU was used for Fat Fritz 2.1? If it's a good one, I would expect it to beat Dragon on four CPU threads, it's more typical to compare a good GPU with 16 cpu cores/threads.

[mar]

Fat Fritz 2.1 uses a GPU, Dragon does not. What GPU was used for Fat Fritz 2.1? If it's a good one, I would expect it to beat Dragon on four CPU threads, it's more typical to compare a good GPU with 16 cpu cores/threads.

are you sure? I thought FF2 was SF NNUE.

[lkaufman]

Fat Fritz 2.1 uses a GPU, Dragon does not. What GPU was used for Fat Fritz 2.1? If it's a good one, I would expect it to beat Dragon on four CPU threads, it's more typical to compare a good GPU with 16 cpu cores/threads.

are you sure? I thought FF2 was SF NNUE.

Sorry, I was thinking of the older FF. FF2 is pretty much like SF13 with a different net but similar strength, so Dragon should lose to it by about this score based on the rating gap between SF13 and the older dragon, allowing for the 10 to 12 elo gain since then.

[AndrewGrant]

You would have to provide more information. I seldom, if ever, receive reports of Ethereal losing on time. If you see time losses, you should simply increase the MoveOverhead UCI paramater. If you are playing sudden death, then I suppose you might see some.

Otherwise, the system is too bogged down to be playing at the current MoveOverhead level, which would surprise me, but it possible. Particularly if you are playing with tablebases on an HDD and not SDD, or if you are pondering while using hyperthreads.

[Jouni]

Really Hash=1024 Threads = 32 for Time= 5,00 Increment= 3,00sec !?

[cpeters]

Krysztof,

the pgn of not only this:
viewtopic.php?p=941732#p941732
has been autodeleted (two weeks default) already by that shitty hoster - there are better ones around (also free). Or one could also use pastebin (up to 512 kb)...

greetings!

[chesskobra]

Each engine has played 21 games - 3 games against every other engine. Are the matches not played as game pairs?

[RubiChess]

99,3% draws.
No game pairs were played. Even number of games played with white and black is odd.
This is one of the worst tourney setups that I've ever seen.

Why did Stormphrax finish 2nd and not one of the other eight engines that played 100% draw?

[Uri Blass]

99,3% draws.
No game pairs were played. Even number of games played with white and black is odd.
This is one of the worst tourney setups that I've ever seen.

Why did Stormphrax finish 2nd and not one of the other eight engines that played 100% draw?

I guess Stormphrax is second place because of the first letter of the name of the engine.
S>I>H>E>D>C>B>A is the reason for the order of the engines that played 100% draws.