WuShock wrote:i7-940 @ 2.93 , 2 threads ea , klo_openings , no egtb , ponder off
Time Control : 1 min + 1 sec

[/img]
Nice, Tom. I wonder if you mind doing a little thing for me. I have 212 freeware engines running in RRs and they are taking every core I have, else I would do it myself.
These are good results- no problem with that. and each person has diff. opinions, as it should be. My problem is I want to see what it can do in a 50 game match on 1 cpu each for the engines, a generic book and ponder off for both engines. And a time control of either 40/3 repeating or just as good would be 4min+2sec. Speaking of Bouquet 1.5 and the new Stockfish 2.3 64bit od course, and popcnt if you can use it- but that is not really important if both have it the same way.
I just don't think results from 1 and 2 min. games are as reliable as 40/3 repeating or 4min+2sec. I wish I could stop to do this- but my cores are full.
Maybe 100 games if you feel like it. And post results in tourn and matches so I can see when I awake.
I perfectly understand if you don't have the time. But just in case you can and don't mind:
Ponder and learning OFF
128MB hash for both.
generic book and limit it to at most 12-move openings
Each engine 64bit and either both or neither use popcnt
1 CPU only for each engine
NO tablebases- NO robbobases- NO endgame bitbases.
(Make sure both use same generic book)
This would be an extremely valuable and very reliable result.
Best,
george
PS: I am the only person on the forum who believes me when I say this. I can look at match results from either time control above- check out some things- and tell you for 100% sure which of the two is stronger- Bouquet 1.5 or the new Stockfish 2.3
Only hang up in it is tho I can tell the stronger- I cannot tell by how much with these few games. Note the loser of the match could be the one I say is stronger. It just depends.