Yes, I've heard the rumours about Junior 11 as well. This release should be different as Junior will become an UCI-engine. Before the release I think we will se a Junior 10 UCI release. What should we expect from Junior 11? Well, hopefully a stronger engine but hopefully also an engine which maintains this special way of playing. The world of chessengines will become more boring if Junior 11 turns out to be another strong "mainstream" engine. We'll see.
As mentioned earlier Junior is quite an extreme engine but perhaps the word "sensible" fits better. Sensible in the sense that Junior when playing a position it "likes" is very, very strong and vice versa. Basicly this is true for all engines (and humans as well) but in particular for Junior. Just take a look at the results so far for Deep Junior 10 and compare them with the results for the positional games:
versus Rybka 2.3.2a mp 3-17 (8-12 in POS-games)
versus Hiarcs 11.1 MP 5½-14½ (15-5 in POS-games!!)
versus Deep Fritz 10 6-14 (5½-14½ in POS-games)
versus Deep Shredder 11 8-12 (9-11 in POS-games)
versus Glaurung 2.0.1 currently 4½-8½ (!) (11½-8½ in POS-games)
The "sensibility" of Junior is also expressed in several ratinglists. When (Deep) Junior 10 is using a commin enginebook it has got a playingstrength clearly behind engines like Fritz 10, Zanzibar, Shredder 10 and Hiarcs 11 (check lists at CEGT and CCRL). However if Junior is allowed to play with its own well-tuned book then it's another story as the SSDF ratinglist is showing:
Only Hiarcs is then in front of Junior and only by few points.
Regards
Per
You're definitely at the right track Per,Junior achieves it's top performance using it's own opening book
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
I have completed almost 50% of the gambitgames and I thought it would be appropriate to present the current stand. First of all let me say that these games compared to the positional games as expected are totally different. I have seen many sharp knock-out games so far and the drawfrequency clearly indicates that: in this moment it is just 24,3% while it was 32,4% for all the positional games!
Here follows the current ratinglist for the Gambitgames (averagerating 2800):
Earlier in this thread I have been talking about the "sensibility" of Junior and the testgames is indeed no exception from this rule. Right now Junior is last (even behind Glaurung) and it is 114 ELO-points below the result from the positional games! Rybka has really surprised me so far in the gambitgames. At this moment it is 35 ELO-points better than the performance it made in the positional games (and this performance was already a very strong one, around 30 ELO-points more than one would expect).
Spike, Naum and Zap are being tested now and when these tests are done I'll return with more comparisons.
Yarget wrote:Rybka has really surprised me so far in the gambitgames. At this moment it is 35 ELO-points better than the performance it made in the positional games (and this performance was already a very strong one, around 30 ELO-points more than one would expect).
Yes, no matter the playing style, Rybka is a monster when it comes to strength
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
Yarget wrote:
Rybka has really surprised me so far in the gambitgames. At this moment it is 35 ELO-points better than the performance it made in the positional games (and this performance was already a very strong one, around 30 ELO-points more than one would expect).
Regards
Per
Then you have a small calibration problem, in your test Rybka is performing generally 40-50 points stronger (comparing to other engines) than in CCRL or CEGT.
Then you have a small calibration problem, in your test Rybka is performing generally 40-50 points stronger (comparing to other engines) than in CCRL or CEGT.
I'm not quite sure what you mean Kai. If you are talking about Rybka and the 35 ELO-points then this number is the exact difference between the current Gambitratinglist (2963) and the Positionalratinglist (2928). If your comment is referring to the list I posted earlier in this thread:
Then you have a small calibration problem, in your test Rybka is performing generally 40-50 points stronger (comparing to other engines) than in CCRL or CEGT.
I'm not quite sure what you mean Kai. If you are talking about Rybka and the 35 ELO-points then this number is the exact difference between the current Gambitratinglist (2963) and the Positionalratinglist (2928).
Regards
Per
If I am not wrong, you said that in Positionalratinglist Rybka is performing 30 points better than expected from CEGT rating compared to other engines. Then in Gambitratinglist it is performing 30+35=65 points better than expected. In the ideal situation these numbers P+G should add to 0 and not to 95, if your openings are representative of the book used by CEGT. Maybe the chosen openings suit Rybka well or maybe it is just a statistical fluctuation or calibration error.
Anyway, it doesn't distort the general picture. Very good test indeed.
Per, did you finish your gambitgames? I would like to see the final results (the difference between Gamb. and Pos. which is not affected by the calibration). It is very interesting to see Rybka more Gamb. and Junior more Pos.
Thanks for your interest in my testwork. I have been very busy this weekend and I haven't been able to test a lot. However, the tests continue and I guess that the Gambitgames will be finished Wednesday or Thursday and following that I'll present the Gambit-ratinglist and I'll compare this one with the Positional-ratinglist.
