FGRL rating list - 60 sec + 0.6 sec
Stockfish 12 (+66 to Stockfish 11)
SlowChess Blitz Classic 2.3 (+4 to SlowChess Blitz Classic 2.2)
Lc0 0.26.1 721990 (+243 to Lc0 CPU 11258-112x9-se)
Cheese 2.2 (+50 to Cheese 2.1)
http://www.fastgm.de
FGRL rating list, 60 sec + 0.6 sec - 1. Stockfish 12, 8. SlowChess Blitz Classic 2.3, 56. Lc0 0.26.1 721990, Cheese 2.2
Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson
Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Re: FGRL rating list, 60 sec + 0.6 sec - 1. Stockfish 12, 8. SlowChess Blitz Classic 2.3, 56. Lc0 0.26.1 721990, Cheese
Thanks for testing. I was hoping for +15 but at least it wasn't negative =). I noticed it did better against some of the stronger opponents but not enough to assume anything more than luck. Possibly the gains were more situational and/or self-play specific than I expected this time.
-
- Posts: 1095
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:08 am
- Location: U.S.A
- Full name: Andrew Grant
- Contact:
Re: FGRL rating list, 60 sec + 0.6 sec - 1. Stockfish 12, 8. SlowChess Blitz Classic 2.3, 56. Lc0 0.26.1 721990, Cheese
I tend not to look much at the 60s+0.6s list. Its too much about beating up the lower end of the fieldjonkr wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:19 amThanks for testing. I was hoping for +15 but at least it wasn't negative =). I noticed it did better against some of the stronger opponents but not enough to assume anything more than luck. Possibly the gains were more situational and/or self-play specific than I expected this time.

The higher TC + CPU counts are the real meat of the rating lists. Its what I'm refreshing for.
-
- Posts: 303
- Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:34 am
- Location: https://github.com/TerjeKir/weiss
- Full name: Terje Kirstihagen
Re: FGRL rating list, 60 sec + 0.6 sec - 1. Stockfish 12, 8. SlowChess Blitz Classic 2.3, 56. Lc0 0.26.1 721990, Cheese
Weiss 1.1 would be happy to be in any list hinthintAndrewGrant wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:28 amI tend not to look much at the 60s+0.6s list. Its too much about beating up the lower end of the fieldjonkr wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 3:19 amThanks for testing. I was hoping for +15 but at least it wasn't negative =). I noticed it did better against some of the stronger opponents but not enough to assume anything more than luck. Possibly the gains were more situational and/or self-play specific than I expected this time.
The higher TC + CPU counts are the real meat of the rating lists. Its what I'm refreshing for.
