Interesting! I would expect 1+1 and 40/4 to be very similar. Strange that 40/40 is closer to 1+1 than 40/4..Alessandro Scotti wrote:Eh eh... I only hope the best for Hamsters!Kirill Kryukov wrote:Not well compared to your own test results, to some else's test results, or to your hope?Alessandro Scotti wrote:I did notice that Hamsters is not doing well in CCRL blitz
However, in this case I am referring to CCRL 40/40. Here is the rating difference (with respect to Hamsters 0.5) of a few engines I test with:
SmarThink, blitz=+52, long=+20
Colossus2007c, blitz=+105, long=+47
Logic099x, blitz=+3, long=-24
Pseudo 0.7c, blitz=+93, long=+39
Petir 4.39, blitz=+80, long=+29
(I also test against Boot 4.13.1 and Trace 1.37 but can't find the data).
It seems there is a 40/50 elo difference when comparing the two performances. I test at 1+1 and my results are a lot closer to 40/40 than 40/4, that's why I think Hamsters might have a problem in handling that time control.
Here Kiwi 0.6d played some more games, including a match with Hamsters 0.5, so we can measure the ponder hit: 63.3% (Approximation based on 32 games). This is the highest ponder hit out of those Kiwi 0.6d has with any engine and also highest of those Hamsters 0.5 has with any engine. Which means Kiwi and Hamsters are at least more similar to each other than to any other engine (out of those they played with). Still ponder hit is so low that if I would not notice any connection by ponder hit value alone.
Evaluation difference shows the same picture.
Ponder hit table
Evaluation difference table
Rating list and score matrix.
It seems, as you said, Kiwi and Hamsters are really different. I will continue to test and list both in my free single-CPU comparison.
Best,
Kirill