more interesting than the unbalanced openings are to use engines with a larger Elo different.
The same results / effect.
UHU is a good idea to look at ... is a draw possible with a bad starting position.
But better if the starting position is balanced.
To avoid too many draws tests with engines around 100-200 weaker made more sense in my opinion for looking.
But 300 Elo is a lot for the time you work on it!
Congratulations ...
I saw on chrsitimas time how strong your engine can play chess with HCE.
And all what I saw are very balanced between midgame / endgame ... stats looks good I made.
Now if you test this again (if you have the hardware possibilities) with longer time controls I am sure you will see ...
The difference with 10x more time is maybe 200+ and with 40x more time maybe 100+.
Should be the same for all balanced programs like your Leorik.
This is a big issue for me here.
This is why John Stanback can see much more gain for the dev version than I can for slower games.
v6.50 is so great, the strongest he ever made with very long time controls.
But to test that need a lot of time and ressources.
At the end of the day I think...
OK, what should I do when testing engines when the results with other time controls are quite different for to many of the engines.
Before Neural-Network I think all are easier than today.
But +300 Elo is really a very strong start in the neural-network World. The grafic you add is very interesting also all your comments. I will study your complete thread next week (on my todo at second). Good for understandings for people like me.

Best
Frank
I will test your engine in Blitz later with 4/2. In my list are engines stronger than 3200 Elo. With about 300 Elo more your engines must be stronger than 3200 Elo if for example Wasp 6.50 plays with 3300 Elo.