CCRL 40/15, 40/2 and FRC lists updated (11th September 2021)

[Graham Banks]

The latest CCRL Rating Lists and Statistics are available for viewing from the following links:
http://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/4040 (40/15)
http://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/404 (40/2)
http://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/404FRC (FRC 40/2)

Please note that the three lists are often updated separately to each other. The FRC list is only updated when a new engine or engine version is being/has been tested.

The links to the various rating lists can be found just beneath the default Best Versions list (as in this screenshot). Specific 32-bit rating lists are denoted as such to the right of the default list in each category. The default lists contain the 64-bit engines.



Our 40 moves in 15 minutes repeating and 40 moves in 2 minutes repeating are both adjusted to the Intel i7 4770k (3.5GHz) using the Stockfish 10 64-bit benchmark.

Be aware that in the early stages of testing, an engine's rating can often fluctuate a lot.
It is strongly advised to look at the many other rating lists available in order to get a more accurate overall picture of an engine's rating relative to others.

The inclusion or exclusion of engines in our lists should not be taken as our group making a statement about their legality or status. Where there is controversy, it is usually mentioned in the engine notes.

Thanks to all of our currently active testers (Graham, Ray, Gabor, Sergio, and Basti). Thanks also to Chessdom.com for hosting our website.

40/15 testing this week that I'm aware of will include (with live broadcast port for TLCV noted where applicable):
(Web based viewer courtesy of Jay Honnold - Berserk engine author)

87th Amateur Series Division 6 Tournament (finishing Monday 16001) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16001
87th Amateur Series Division 7 Tournament (finishing Monday 16002) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16002
87th Amateur Series Division 8 Tournament (starting Monday 16053) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16053
New Tournament (starting Monday 16001) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16001
New Tournament (starting Monday 16002) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16002
Marvin 5.1.0 64-bit Gauntlet (continuing 16063) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16063
CT800 1.43 64-bit Gauntlet (continuing 16064) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16064
Bit-Genie 9.0 64-bit Gauntlet (finishing Thursday 16065) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16065
Velvet 2.0.0 64-bit Gauntlet (starting Thursday 16066) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16066
OliThink 5.10.1 64-bit 64-bit Gauntlet (continuing 16091) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16091
Stash 31.0 64-bit Gauntlet (finishing Tuesday 16092) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16092
Ceibo 0.8 64-bit Gauntlet (starting Tuesday 16092) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16092
SlowChess Blitz 2.7 64-bit Gauntlet (continuing 16093) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16093
Greko 2021.08 64-bit Gauntlet (Shredder GUI - no broadcast - continuing)
Weiss 2.0 64-bit 4CPU Gauntlet (continuing 16083) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16083
Stash 31.0 64-bit 4CPU Gauntlet (finishing Thursday 16084) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16084
Slowchess Blitz 2.7 64-bit 4CPU Gauntlet (starting Thursday 16084) Web based viewer http://tlcv.net/16084

40/2 testing since the last update report has included (thanks to Gabor, Basti and Sergio):

Minnow 64-bit
Scorpio 3.0.14 NNUE 64-bit 8CPU
Bit-Genie 9 64-bit
Koivisto 6.0 64-bit
Blunder 5.0.0 64-bit
MinimalChess 0.6 64-bit
Raven 1.20 64-bit
Weiss 2.0 64-bit
JackyChess 0.9.14 64-bit
Lc0 0.28.0 t40-1541 RTX2080
Arasan 23.0 NN 20210827 64-bit 8CPU
Princhess 0.3.1 64-bit
Ceibo 0.8 64-bit
KnightX 2.9 64-bit

[Rebel]

I think mark young made an important point regrading testing Lc0 with old nets, story at -

https://prodeo.actieforum.com/t532-what ... -here#4476

[Vernon Crawford]

I think mark young made an important point regrading testing Lc0 with old nets, story at -

https://prodeo.actieforum.com/t532-what ... -here#4476

Mark's post is despicable...it accuses the CCRL of either being incompetent or deliberately sabotaging LC0s rating?
An important point?
Seriously?

The CCRL has done a valuable service, for free, for many many years
It's quite clear that the only reason for you to link to it here, is to further disparage and humiliate them (with whom you own new GRL list is in competition).

Please keep garbage like that on your forum, it's quite unpleasant see such animosity and disrespect.

BTW have you replayed all the flawed games played with the old version of Arena that make up your GRL list?

[Rebel]

Well, well, your 6th post and what a language use.

I have nothing but respect for CCRL, they know. But criticism is allowed.

Using an old outdated net for versions 26,27 and 28 can't be good.

[Albert Silver]

Well, well, your 6th post and what a language use.

I have nothing but respect for CCRL, they know. But criticism is allowed.

Using an old outdated net for versions 26,27 and 28 can't be good.

I have to agree with Vernon on the first points. Mark's post is despicable. Did he write to the tester to inquire why it was tested this way? Or did he simply come up with that absurdly vitriolic conspiracy theory on his own? I suspect he made zero effort to actually open a dialogue and remedy what he felt was a problem, and instead ran to his keyboard to compose that attack. Of course, this is par for the course in computer chess forums nowadays.

[connor_mcmonigle]

I think mark young made an important point regrading testing Lc0 with old nets, story at -

https://prodeo.actieforum.com/t532-what ... -here#4476

Mark's post is despicable...it accuses the CCRL of either being incompetent or deliberately sabotaging LC0s rating?
An important point?
Seriously?

The CCRL has done a valuable service, for free, for many many years
It's quite clear that the only reason for you to link to it here, is to further disparage and humiliate them (with whom you own new GRL list is in competition).

Please keep garbage like that on your forum, it's quite unpleasant see such animosity and disrespect.

BTW have you replayed all the flawed games played with the old version of Arena that make up your GRL list?

I'm no fan of "mark young". However, while his post is unnecessarily incendiary, he does make a good point. Why is CCRL testing Lc0 with a ridiculously outdated network? Incompetence does seem a likely answer given the available evidence.

Your post, Vernon, strikes me as equally hyperbolic. Ed isn't trying to humiliate CCRL. Testers are generally appreciative of those who point out flaws in their testing methodology.

[Rebel]

Alright, I regret that I involved Mark, he can't defend himself.

[Rebel]

I think mark young made an important point regrading testing Lc0 with old nets, story at -

https://prodeo.actieforum.com/t532-what ... -here#4476

Mark's post is despicable...it accuses the CCRL of either being incompetent or deliberately sabotaging LC0s rating?
An important point?
Seriously?

The CCRL has done a valuable service, for free, for many many years
It's quite clear that the only reason for you to link to it here, is to further disparage and humiliate them (with whom you own new GRL list is in competition).

Please keep garbage like that on your forum, it's quite unpleasant see such animosity and disrespect.

BTW have you replayed all the flawed games played with the old version of Arena that make up your GRL list?

I'm no fan of "mark young". However, while his post is unnecessarily incendiary, he does make a good point. Why is CCRL testing Lc0 with a ridiculously outdated network? Incompetence does seem a likely answer given the available evidence.

Your post, Vernon, strikes me as equally hyperbolic. Ed isn't trying to humiliate CCRL. Testers are generally appreciative of those who point out flaws in their testing methodology.

Exactly. The TT issue comes to mind

[Guenther]

Well, well, your 6th post and what a language use.

I have nothing but respect for CCRL, they know. But criticism is allowed.

Using an old outdated net for versions 26,27 and 28 can't be good.

Well actually it is his 7th post, one was deleted, because he called me 'social misfit',
after I finally called 'alexchess' a moron for again and again polluting my new engine releases
thread with crap engines.
(BTW he did it again today! I will remain with full confidence at my moron calling).

For me it is completely clear he (Vernon X, or whatever his real name is) came here for trolling.
Also at the same day he appeared here, he opened his own 'forum' which offers all kind of illegal derivates
and clones for download, even the old Patriot! one of only two illegal clones/derivates, which ever tried
to be commercial.

I don't think there is much more to say regarding him...

[Vernon Crawford]

I think mark young made an important point regrading testing Lc0 with old nets, story at -

https://prodeo.actieforum.com/t532-what ... -here#4476

Mark's post is despicable...it accuses the CCRL of either being incompetent or deliberately sabotaging LC0s rating?
An important point?
Seriously?

The CCRL has done a valuable service, for free, for many many years
It's quite clear that the only reason for you to link to it here, is to further disparage and humiliate them (with whom you own new GRL list is in competition).

Please keep garbage like that on your forum, it's quite unpleasant see such animosity and disrespect.

BTW have you replayed all the flawed games played with the old version of Arena that make up your GRL list?

I'm no fan of "mark young". However, while his post is unnecessarily incendiary, he does make a good point. Why is CCRL testing Lc0 with a ridiculously outdated network? Incompetence does seem a likely answer given the available evidence.

Your post, Vernon, strikes me as equally hyperbolic. Ed isn't trying to humiliate CCRL. Testers are generally appreciative of those who point out flaws in their testing methodology.

Exactly. The TT issue comes to mind

Yes, a friendly comment or suggestion certainly would very likely be appreciated...
but this link that was posted was an accusation of incompetence or deliberate sabotage on LC0 rating
and it was posted without any discretion or 2nd thought.

There's a big difference..