CEGT - rating lists October 30th 2011

[Werner]

Hi all,

our actual rating lists are online and can be found under the attached links.

40 / 20:
New games: 863; 21 different engines
Total: 544.383

NEW Engines
700 Francesca MAD 0.19: 2579 - 150 games (good start here)
391 Tornado 4.80 x64 1CPU: 2816 - 119 games (with a lot of time-losts at move 40 - perhaps only with ponder off?)

UPDATES
3 Critter 1.2 x64 4CPU: 3246 - 3572 games (+2 and now nr. 3)!
7 Critter 1.2 x64 2CPU: 3217 - 750 games (-5)
47 Chiron 1.0/1.1 x64 4CPU: 3114 - 603 games (lost a few points)
241 Fruit 090705 w32 1CPU: 2860 - 1193 games (+8)
261 Equinox 0.97e x64 1CPU: 2890 - 999 games (-5)
503 Bobcat 2.75 x64 1CPU: 2725 - 1050 games (+1)
462 Chronos 1.9.9 x64 : 2762 - 957 games (-3)
397 Naraku 1.4: 2815 - 750 games (-6)
432 Glaurung 2.2 w32 1CPU: 2791 - 860 games (-1)
712 Francesca MAD 0.15: 2570 - 756 games (-15)

40 / 4:
No update this week - see new tests in our forum:
(e.g. Atlas 3.14b, Tornado 4.80)

40/120
See here our new single-list:
http://cegt.siteboard.eu/f4t18-new-40-1 ... -list.html
We hope to provide the new games for a download till the end of this year.

A big „Thank you“ to all testers as usual!!

Links

40/20: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm
Blitz: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/blitz.htm
40/120: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
Tester: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/testers/testers.htm
Elo-comparison: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/Replay/ ... arison.htm
Games of the week: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... on/gow.jpg

Werner Schuele
CEGT-Team

[Graham Banks]

391 Tornado 4.80 x64 1CPU: 2816 - 119 games (with a lot of time-losts at move 40 - perhaps only with ponder off?)

Same problem here with the last move before either the first or second time control. Engin is going to put out a bugfix soon.

[El Gringo]

Hi,

Tornado Chess games played under Arena 2.0 with ponder OFF.

Best
Johan

[kranium]

Johan/Werner, and Graham as well...

Can you guys explain why you test some 'cloned' engines but others?

i.e. in particular:
why Houdini, Rybka, and most recently Strelka (RE'd Houdini)...
but not IvanHoe?

there seems to be no consistent policy, or some double standard at work?

[ernest]

but not IvanHoe?

Frankly, there used to be, and still are so many IvanHoes, that it is indeed difficult to choose... and there is no "author" who can say: this one has added value, is stable, please test that one!

[kranium]

but not IvanHoe?

Frankly, there used to be, and still are so many IvanHoes, that it is indeed difficult to choose... and there is no "author" who can say: this one has added value, is stable, please test that one!

man that's pretty weak.

are you telling me all three: CCRL/CEGT/IPON are so overwhelmed and confused they can't choose one?

perhaps they could choose the latest and strongest release...
IvanHoe 999947c?

or maybe Fire?...I can assure you I'm a real person, and Fire is proven very stable.

fact is: the entire Ippolit family of engines has been blacklisted by them...yet they test all manner of other RE'd and 'cloned' engines.

these unscrupulous 'testers' have abused their influence, and cannot (or will not) admit they have been completely unfair and mistaken...

meanwhile while Ippolit continues to be 'blacklisted', other engine authors are free to rape and plunder the fantastic source code,
even if it's GPL'd, and their creations are warmly embraced!

[Werner]

Frankly, there used to be, and still are so many IvanHoes, that it is indeed difficult to choose... and there is no "author" who can say: this one has added value, is stable, please test that one!

Hi Ernest,
thanks for that try. The answer shows me not to discuss internal arrangements here. I think we are in a line with other lists. There is no dictat to test a certain engine. In my eyes there are no differences here between top engines or weaker amateur engines and there is no way to test them all. Inside CEGT the testers are free to choose the engines which are tested.

[lkaufman]

Johan/Werner, and Graham as well...

Can you guys explain why you test some 'cloned' engines but others?

i.e. in particular:
why Houdini, Rybka, and most recently Strelka (RE'd Houdini)...
but not IvanHoe?

there seems to be no consistent policy, or some double standard at work?

I thought it was simply a decision to test the best of the Ippolit derivatives, which was clearly Houdini. But if they are testing Strelka as well, that seems to contradict this notion. Personally I can't see any reason not to rate one of your engines now. Perhaps you should determine whether Fire or Ivanhoe is stronger and request that one particular version only be tested, if you are the main author of both of these engines.

[Uri Blass]

I see strelka5.0 only in the blitz list and it is not clear that houdini is better than strelka based on the results

1 Houdini 2.0 x64 1CPU 3234 13 13 2100 73.0% 3062 31.9%
Houdini 1.5 x64 1CPU 3229 9 9 4450 74.1% 3046 28.9%
2 Strelka 5.0 x64 1CPU 3226 23 23 500 61.1% 3147 45.4%

Not enough games to know

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Johan/Werner, and Graham as well...

Can you guys explain why you test some 'cloned' engines but others?

i.e. in particular:
why Houdini, Rybka, and most recently Strelka (RE'd Houdini)...
but not IvanHoe?

there seems to be no consistent policy, or some double standard at work?

I thought it was simply a decision to test the best of the Ippolit derivatives, which was clearly Houdini. But if they are testing Strelka as well, that seems to contradict this notion. Personally I can't see any reason not to rate one of your engines now. Perhaps you should determine whether Fire or Ivanhoe is stronger and request that one particular version only be tested, if you are the main author of both of these engines.

That's why I am building my own rating list since years so that I don't wonder why this or that chess engine is not being tested....
Dr.D