New Duel: Who will win: Rybka or Stockfish ?

[lkaufman]

Rybka should win because I think double time is worth around 60 elo or so in the range in question, and the handicap is a bit below four doublings. I think it makes more sense when running these handicap matches to keep the ratio of base time to increment the same for both engines, so for example in this case instead of 30 min plus 1 second it could be 15 min plus 15 sec. First of all doing it this way makes the handicap perfectly clear. Also, the way you are doing it Rybka has a huge edge in the opening, while SF will have a huge edge in the endgame once the players have exhausted most of their base time. So the results will depend heavily on the nature of the openings chosen, whether they lead to quick fights or to long endgames. A uniform ratio avoids this problem.
Your matches are similar to the one reported on ChessBase where Komodo 8 beat Shredder (from 2006) by 5 to 1 effectively giving 50 to one time handicap by running Komodo on a cellphone with Shredder on an i7 with equal time. It's really amazing how much stronger both SF and Komodo are than the best engines of a few years ago. The claim made by some uninformed IM or GM that most progress in computer chess in recent years is from hardware is clearly refuted.

Thanks for your positive and useful comment dear Larry

Also I'd like to say thanks to Mr. Mark Lefler too,
he contacted several times to help me regarding K8 in SCCT

We need more Komodo teams !

About the Elo difference in doubling the time control,
I think it all it depends on used condition...before I was thinking approx. 80 Elo
but now I have different view...so my opinion is average 40 Elo
But to be sure we need more games...

Btw,
Later ...maybe after this event I can organize another interesting duel,
Komodo 2m+1s vs Stockfish 1m+1s, (100 games) what is your estimation, who will be the winner ?)


Best,
Sedat

Stockfish 5 is only 4 elo above Komodo 8 on the 1' + 1" "UFRL" list, and is much lower rated on the intermediate level lists. I suppose if SF has gained 20+ elo points since SF5 it might be a close match, since your proposal is about half a doubling in time, but if you played at 10' +10" for each it should be about an even match with no time difference. One minute plus 1" is just about the optimum level for SF vs Komodo.

I think it is more about 55% for latest SF dev.
See for instance this report of Adam Hair: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 22&t=53844

I have tested Komodo 8 (Drawscore=0) and Stockfish 140919 at 40 moves/3 minutes (equivalent to CCRL 40/4) on a couple of different computers (Intel E8400 and Intel Xeon L5420), in Windows XP 64-bit and Linux Mint 15, using both the Linux and Windows compiles (including via Wine), and using various openings formats (Sedat's Perfect 2014t, Lyudmil Tsvetkov's 2 move pgn, and a subset of the 8 move pgn used to create the TCEC openings). The cumulative score was:

Code: Select all

Code:

   # PLAYER                     : RATING  ERROR   POINTS  PLAYED    (%) 
   1 Stockfish 140919 64-bit    :   41.5    7.9   1985.0    3555   55.8% 
   2 Komodo 8 64-bit            :    0.0   ----   1570.0    3555   44.2%

At these fast levels the recent SF dev. versions might beat Komodo 8 by 30 elo or so in direct play, which for unknown reasons gives SF much better results than you see if you run them each against Houdini 4 (the only other engine close enough to test against). But based on the nearly thirty elo lead of Komodo 8 over Stockfish 5 on the 40/20 and 40/40 rating lists, I think it is reasonable to predict a very close match with new SF vs K8 at a fairly comparable level (since those lists use adjusted time controls) like ten minutes plus ten seconds. It used to be that Komodo gained much more with increased time than Houdini but not any more than SF, but since Komodo 8 it is pretty clear that Komodo now gains much more with increased time (at least in the range under discussion) than SF. I hope someone runs my proposed match.

[beram]

Rybka should win because I think double time is worth around 60 elo or so in the range in question, and the handicap is a bit below four doublings. I think it makes more sense when running these handicap matches to keep the ratio of base time to increment the same for both engines, so for example in this case instead of 30 min plus 1 second it could be 15 min plus 15 sec. First of all doing it this way makes the handicap perfectly clear. Also, the way you are doing it Rybka has a huge edge in the opening, while SF will have a huge edge in the endgame once the players have exhausted most of their base time. So the results will depend heavily on the nature of the openings chosen, whether they lead to quick fights or to long endgames. A uniform ratio avoids this problem.
Your matches are similar to the one reported on ChessBase where Komodo 8 beat Shredder (from 2006) by 5 to 1 effectively giving 50 to one time handicap by running Komodo on a cellphone with Shredder on an i7 with equal time. It's really amazing how much stronger both SF and Komodo are than the best engines of a few years ago. The claim made by some uninformed IM or GM that most progress in computer chess in recent years is from hardware is clearly refuted.

Thanks for your positive and useful comment dear Larry

Also I'd like to say thanks to Mr. Mark Lefler too,
he contacted several times to help me regarding K8 in SCCT

We need more Komodo teams !

About the Elo difference in doubling the time control,
I think it all it depends on used condition...before I was thinking approx. 80 Elo
but now I have different view...so my opinion is average 40 Elo
But to be sure we need more games...

Btw,
Later ...maybe after this event I can organize another interesting duel,
Komodo 2m+1s vs Stockfish 1m+1s, (100 games) what is your estimation, who will be the winner ?)


Best,
Sedat

Stockfish 5 is only 4 elo above Komodo 8 on the 1' + 1" "UFRL" list, and is much lower rated on the intermediate level lists. I suppose if SF has gained 20+ elo points since SF5 it might be a close match, since your proposal is about half a doubling in time, but if you played at 10' +10" for each it should be about an even match with no time difference. One minute plus 1" is just about the optimum level for SF vs Komodo.

I think it is more about 55% for latest SF dev.
See for instance this report of Adam Hair: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 22&t=53844

I have tested Komodo 8 (Drawscore=0) and Stockfish 140919 at 40 moves/3 minutes (equivalent to CCRL 40/4) on a couple of different computers (Intel E8400 and Intel Xeon L5420), in Windows XP 64-bit and Linux Mint 15, using both the Linux and Windows compiles (including via Wine), and using various openings formats (Sedat's Perfect 2014t, Lyudmil Tsvetkov's 2 move pgn, and a subset of the 8 move pgn used to create the TCEC openings). The cumulative score was:

Code: Select all

Code:

   # PLAYER                     : RATING  ERROR   POINTS  PLAYED    (%) 
   1 Stockfish 140919 64-bit    :   41.5    7.9   1985.0    3555   55.8% 
   2 Komodo 8 64-bit            :    0.0   ----   1570.0    3555   44.2%

At these fast levels the recent SF dev. versions might beat Komodo 8 by 30 elo or so in direct play, which for unknown reasons gives SF much better results than you see if you run them each against Houdini 4 (the only other engine close enough to test against). But based on the nearly thirty elo lead of Komodo 8 over Stockfish 5 on the 40/20 and 40/40 rating lists, I think it is reasonable to predict a very close match with new SF vs K8 at a fairly comparable level (since those lists use adjusted time controls) like ten minutes plus ten seconds. It used to be that Komodo gained much more with increased time than Houdini but not any more than SF, but since Komodo 8 it is pretty clear that Komodo now gains much more with increased time (at least in the range under discussion) than SF. I hope someone runs my proposed match.

as I mentioned earlier in the above thread, there is a match in your supposed TC range one of 10m 6sec with 300 games which showed K8 and SF5 are equal http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html

That match ended 149 - 151 for K8 vs SF5
So if we estimate latest SF dev 231014 about 30ELO over SF5 stronger than 30 ELO will be the expected difference between K8 and SFdev2310 at this moment at TC 10m 10s.
30 ELO or about 54% for latest SFdev over K8 at TC 10m10s

[lkaufman]

Rybka should win because I think double time is worth around 60 elo or so in the range in question, and the handicap is a bit below four doublings. I think it makes more sense when running these handicap matches to keep the ratio of base time to increment the same for both engines, so for example in this case instead of 30 min plus 1 second it could be 15 min plus 15 sec. First of all doing it this way makes the handicap perfectly clear. Also, the way you are doing it Rybka has a huge edge in the opening, while SF will have a huge edge in the endgame once the players have exhausted most of their base time. So the results will depend heavily on the nature of the openings chosen, whether they lead to quick fights or to long endgames. A uniform ratio avoids this problem.
Your matches are similar to the one reported on ChessBase where Komodo 8 beat Shredder (from 2006) by 5 to 1 effectively giving 50 to one time handicap by running Komodo on a cellphone with Shredder on an i7 with equal time. It's really amazing how much stronger both SF and Komodo are than the best engines of a few years ago. The claim made by some uninformed IM or GM that most progress in computer chess in recent years is from hardware is clearly refuted.

Thanks for your positive and useful comment dear Larry

Also I'd like to say thanks to Mr. Mark Lefler too,
he contacted several times to help me regarding K8 in SCCT

We need more Komodo teams !

About the Elo difference in doubling the time control,
I think it all it depends on used condition...before I was thinking approx. 80 Elo
but now I have different view...so my opinion is average 40 Elo
But to be sure we need more games...

Btw,
Later ...maybe after this event I can organize another interesting duel,
Komodo 2m+1s vs Stockfish 1m+1s, (100 games) what is your estimation, who will be the winner ?)


Best,
Sedat

Stockfish 5 is only 4 elo above Komodo 8 on the 1' + 1" "UFRL" list, and is much lower rated on the intermediate level lists. I suppose if SF has gained 20+ elo points since SF5 it might be a close match, since your proposal is about half a doubling in time, but if you played at 10' +10" for each it should be about an even match with no time difference. One minute plus 1" is just about the optimum level for SF vs Komodo.

I think it is more about 55% for latest SF dev.
See for instance this report of Adam Hair: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 22&t=53844

I have tested Komodo 8 (Drawscore=0) and Stockfish 140919 at 40 moves/3 minutes (equivalent to CCRL 40/4) on a couple of different computers (Intel E8400 and Intel Xeon L5420), in Windows XP 64-bit and Linux Mint 15, using both the Linux and Windows compiles (including via Wine), and using various openings formats (Sedat's Perfect 2014t, Lyudmil Tsvetkov's 2 move pgn, and a subset of the 8 move pgn used to create the TCEC openings). The cumulative score was:

Code: Select all

Code:

   # PLAYER                     : RATING  ERROR   POINTS  PLAYED    (%) 
   1 Stockfish 140919 64-bit    :   41.5    7.9   1985.0    3555   55.8% 
   2 Komodo 8 64-bit            :    0.0   ----   1570.0    3555   44.2%

At these fast levels the recent SF dev. versions might beat Komodo 8 by 30 elo or so in direct play, which for unknown reasons gives SF much better results than you see if you run them each against Houdini 4 (the only other engine close enough to test against). But based on the nearly thirty elo lead of Komodo 8 over Stockfish 5 on the 40/20 and 40/40 rating lists, I think it is reasonable to predict a very close match with new SF vs K8 at a fairly comparable level (since those lists use adjusted time controls) like ten minutes plus ten seconds. It used to be that Komodo gained much more with increased time than Houdini but not any more than SF, but since Komodo 8 it is pretty clear that Komodo now gains much more with increased time (at least in the range under discussion) than SF. I hope someone runs my proposed match.

as I mentioned earlier in the above thread, there is a match in your supposed TC range one of 10m 6sec with 300 games which showed K8 and SF5 are equal http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html

That match ended 149 - 151 for K8 vs SF5
So if we estimate latest SF dev 231014 about 30ELO over SF5 stronger than 30 ELO will be the expected difference between K8 and SFdev2310 at this moment at TC 10m 10s.
30 ELO or about 54% for latest SFdev over K8 at TC 10m10s

That match was single-core; the dominant CCRL and CEGT results for Komodo are at 40/20 and 40/40 on FOUR cores. So I'm talking about 10 minutes plus ten seconds on 4 (or 6) cores, or 30 minutes plus 30 seconds on one core (since 4 cores are about as strong as one core with triple time). The level you quote is about four times as fast as this. What results can you cite that are close to these levels?

[beram]

Rybka should win because I think double time is worth around 60 elo or so in the range in question, and the handicap is a bit below four doublings. I think it makes more sense when running these handicap matches to keep the ratio of base time to increment the same for both engines, so for example in this case instead of 30 min plus 1 second it could be 15 min plus 15 sec. First of all doing it this way makes the handicap perfectly clear. Also, the way you are doing it Rybka has a huge edge in the opening, while SF will have a huge edge in the endgame once the players have exhausted most of their base time. So the results will depend heavily on the nature of the openings chosen, whether they lead to quick fights or to long endgames. A uniform ratio avoids this problem.
Your matches are similar to the one reported on ChessBase where Komodo 8 beat Shredder (from 2006) by 5 to 1 effectively giving 50 to one time handicap by running Komodo on a cellphone with Shredder on an i7 with equal time. It's really amazing how much stronger both SF and Komodo are than the best engines of a few years ago. The claim made by some uninformed IM or GM that most progress in computer chess in recent years is from hardware is clearly refuted.

Thanks for your positive and useful comment dear Larry

Also I'd like to say thanks to Mr. Mark Lefler too,
he contacted several times to help me regarding K8 in SCCT

We need more Komodo teams !

About the Elo difference in doubling the time control,
I think it all it depends on used condition...before I was thinking approx. 80 Elo
but now I have different view...so my opinion is average 40 Elo
But to be sure we need more games...

Btw,
Later ...maybe after this event I can organize another interesting duel,
Komodo 2m+1s vs Stockfish 1m+1s, (100 games) what is your estimation, who will be the winner ?)


Best,
Sedat

Stockfish 5 is only 4 elo above Komodo 8 on the 1' + 1" "UFRL" list, and is much lower rated on the intermediate level lists. I suppose if SF has gained 20+ elo points since SF5 it might be a close match, since your proposal is about half a doubling in time, but if you played at 10' +10" for each it should be about an even match with no time difference. One minute plus 1" is just about the optimum level for SF vs Komodo.

I think it is more about 55% for latest SF dev.
See for instance this report of Adam Hair: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 22&t=53844

I have tested Komodo 8 (Drawscore=0) and Stockfish 140919 at 40 moves/3 minutes (equivalent to CCRL 40/4) on a couple of different computers (Intel E8400 and Intel Xeon L5420), in Windows XP 64-bit and Linux Mint 15, using both the Linux and Windows compiles (including via Wine), and using various openings formats (Sedat's Perfect 2014t, Lyudmil Tsvetkov's 2 move pgn, and a subset of the 8 move pgn used to create the TCEC openings). The cumulative score was:

Code: Select all

Code:

   # PLAYER                     : RATING  ERROR   POINTS  PLAYED    (%) 
   1 Stockfish 140919 64-bit    :   41.5    7.9   1985.0    3555   55.8% 
   2 Komodo 8 64-bit            :    0.0   ----   1570.0    3555   44.2%

At these fast levels the recent SF dev. versions might beat Komodo 8 by 30 elo or so in direct play, which for unknown reasons gives SF much better results than you see if you run them each against Houdini 4 (the only other engine close enough to test against). But based on the nearly thirty elo lead of Komodo 8 over Stockfish 5 on the 40/20 and 40/40 rating lists, I think it is reasonable to predict a very close match with new SF vs K8 at a fairly comparable level (since those lists use adjusted time controls) like ten minutes plus ten seconds. It used to be that Komodo gained much more with increased time than Houdini but not any more than SF, but since Komodo 8 it is pretty clear that Komodo now gains much more with increased time (at least in the range under discussion) than SF. I hope someone runs my proposed match.

as I mentioned earlier in the above thread, there is a match in your supposed TC range one of 10m 6sec with 300 games which showed K8 and SF5 are equal http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html

That match ended 149 - 151 for K8 vs SF5
So if we estimate latest SF dev 231014 about 30ELO over SF5 stronger than 30 ELO will be the expected difference between K8 and SFdev2310 at this moment at TC 10m 10s.
30 ELO or about 54% for latest SFdev over K8 at TC 10m10s

That match was single-core; the dominant CCRL and CEGT results for Komodo are at 40/20 and 40/40 on FOUR cores. So I'm talking about 10 minutes plus ten seconds on 4 (or 6) cores, or 30 minutes plus 30 seconds on one core (since 4 cores are about as strong as one core with triple time). The level you quote is about four times as fast as this. What results can you cite that are close to these levels?

I recall the thread with for instance the mentioned WSET match 50 games at LTC 150m 30s won by SF dev of early sept
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 15&t=53844
But I dont think you want to be convinced and you have a personal and commercial reason for that, which I can understand

[lkaufman]

Rybka should win because I think double time is worth around 60 elo or so in the range in question, and the handicap is a bit below four doublings. I think it makes more sense when running these handicap matches to keep the ratio of base time to increment the same for both engines, so for example in this case instead of 30 min plus 1 second it could be 15 min plus 15 sec. First of all doing it this way makes the handicap perfectly clear. Also, the way you are doing it Rybka has a huge edge in the opening, while SF will have a huge edge in the endgame once the players have exhausted most of their base time. So the results will depend heavily on the nature of the openings chosen, whether they lead to quick fights or to long endgames. A uniform ratio avoids this problem.
Your matches are similar to the one reported on ChessBase where Komodo 8 beat Shredder (from 2006) by 5 to 1 effectively giving 50 to one time handicap by running Komodo on a cellphone with Shredder on an i7 with equal time. It's really amazing how much stronger both SF and Komodo are than the best engines of a few years ago. The claim made by some uninformed IM or GM that most progress in computer chess in recent years is from hardware is clearly refuted.

Thanks for your positive and useful comment dear Larry

Also I'd like to say thanks to Mr. Mark Lefler too,
he contacted several times to help me regarding K8 in SCCT

We need more Komodo teams !

About the Elo difference in doubling the time control,
I think it all it depends on used condition...before I was thinking approx. 80 Elo
but now I have different view...so my opinion is average 40 Elo
But to be sure we need more games...

Btw,
Later ...maybe after this event I can organize another interesting duel,
Komodo 2m+1s vs Stockfish 1m+1s, (100 games) what is your estimation, who will be the winner ?)


Best,
Sedat

Stockfish 5 is only 4 elo above Komodo 8 on the 1' + 1" "UFRL" list, and is much lower rated on the intermediate level lists. I suppose if SF has gained 20+ elo points since SF5 it might be a close match, since your proposal is about half a doubling in time, but if you played at 10' +10" for each it should be about an even match with no time difference. One minute plus 1" is just about the optimum level for SF vs Komodo.

I think it is more about 55% for latest SF dev.
See for instance this report of Adam Hair: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 22&t=53844

I have tested Komodo 8 (Drawscore=0) and Stockfish 140919 at 40 moves/3 minutes (equivalent to CCRL 40/4) on a couple of different computers (Intel E8400 and Intel Xeon L5420), in Windows XP 64-bit and Linux Mint 15, using both the Linux and Windows compiles (including via Wine), and using various openings formats (Sedat's Perfect 2014t, Lyudmil Tsvetkov's 2 move pgn, and a subset of the 8 move pgn used to create the TCEC openings). The cumulative score was:

Code: Select all

Code:

   # PLAYER                     : RATING  ERROR   POINTS  PLAYED    (%) 
   1 Stockfish 140919 64-bit    :   41.5    7.9   1985.0    3555   55.8% 
   2 Komodo 8 64-bit            :    0.0   ----   1570.0    3555   44.2%

At these fast levels the recent SF dev. versions might beat Komodo 8 by 30 elo or so in direct play, which for unknown reasons gives SF much better results than you see if you run them each against Houdini 4 (the only other engine close enough to test against). But based on the nearly thirty elo lead of Komodo 8 over Stockfish 5 on the 40/20 and 40/40 rating lists, I think it is reasonable to predict a very close match with new SF vs K8 at a fairly comparable level (since those lists use adjusted time controls) like ten minutes plus ten seconds. It used to be that Komodo gained much more with increased time than Houdini but not any more than SF, but since Komodo 8 it is pretty clear that Komodo now gains much more with increased time (at least in the range under discussion) than SF. I hope someone runs my proposed match.

as I mentioned earlier in the above thread, there is a match in your supposed TC range one of 10m 6sec with 300 games which showed K8 and SF5 are equal http://www.fastgm.de/10min.html

That match ended 149 - 151 for K8 vs SF5
So if we estimate latest SF dev 231014 about 30ELO over SF5 stronger than 30 ELO will be the expected difference between K8 and SFdev2310 at this moment at TC 10m 10s.
30 ELO or about 54% for latest SFdev over K8 at TC 10m10s

That match was single-core; the dominant CCRL and CEGT results for Komodo are at 40/20 and 40/40 on FOUR cores. So I'm talking about 10 minutes plus ten seconds on 4 (or 6) cores, or 30 minutes plus 30 seconds on one core (since 4 cores are about as strong as one core with triple time). The level you quote is about four times as fast as this. What results can you cite that are close to these levels?

I recall the thread with for instance the mentioned WSET match 50 games at LTC 150m 30s won by SF dev of early sept
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 15&t=53844
But I dont think you want to be convinced and you have a personal and commercial reason for that, which I can understand

Well if you want to include long time control matches then of course we have the 100 games on 8 cores reported by Graham Banks which came out dead even betwee K8 and recent SF dev. So I guess with the match you mention SF leads by 5 games out of those 150, but there are also other matches reported and I don't recall them all. Of course I don't "want to be convinced", yes, I do have a vested interest, but if someone considered reliable plays a couple hundred game match at some intermediate level (at least 10 plus 10 on 4 cores or 30 plus 30 or one) I'll accept the result as valid. Of course we are at a disadvantage in that you are using the latest dev. version of SF but not of Komodo, but since that is only available to a very few select testers I can't fault you for that.

[Sedat Canbaz]

.
Stockfish wins the duel !!

Unfortunately,
Komodo 8 suffers under these conditions...

I am going to run a new duel: Komodo 3m+1s vs Stockfish 1m+1s
Let's see 3m+1s will help K8 to be the winner ?!

[Sedat Canbaz]

Update

Komodo 3m+1s is started to perform better, after 10 games: the current results are equal


.

[Sedat Canbaz]

Btw, 2-3 days ago...
I run a few games more (with Ponder OFF), so I decided to publish them too


[pgn][Event "Komodo vs Crafty"]
[Site "SCCT"]
[Date "2014.10.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Komodo 8 1m+1s"]
[Black "Crafty 24.1 30m+1s"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B33"]
[Annotator "Crafty 24.1"]
[PlyCount "163"]
[TimeControl "60+1"]

{512MB, Perfect2015.ctg, pc12} 1. e4 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} c5 {[%emt 0:
00:05]} 2. Nf3 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Nc6 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 3. d4 {[%eval
0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} cxd4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 4. Nxd4 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]}
e6 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 5. Nc3 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 6.
Ndb5 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} d6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 7. Bf4 {[%eval 0,0]
[%emt 0:00:00]} e5 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 8. Bg5 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} a6 {
[%emt 0:00:03]} 9. Na3 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} b5 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 10.
Bxf6 {[%eval 21,14] [%emt 0:00:02]} gxf6 {[%emt 0:00:53]} 11. Nd5 {[%eval 26,
17] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:02:21]} 12. c4 {[%eval 26,15] [%emt 0:00:02]}
bxc4 {[%emt 0:01:23]} 13. Nxc4 {[%eval 71,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} O-O {[%emt 0:01:
08]} 14. Rc1 {[%eval 53,18] [%emt 0:00:07]} Be6 {[%emt 0:01:12]} 15. Ncb6 {
[%eval 60,19] [%emt 0:00:03]} Bxd5 {[%emt 0:01:02]} 16. Nxd5 {[%eval 69,18]
[%emt 0:00:02]} Qa5+ {[%emt 0:00:40]} 17. Rc3 {[%eval 107,17] [%emt 0:00:03]}
Rfb8 {[%emt 0:01:31]} 18. Qd2 {[%eval 163,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qxa2 {[%emt 0:00:
38]} 19. Rxc6 {[%eval 158,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} Rxb2 {[%emt 0:00:48]} 20. Qd1 {
[%eval 150,19] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qa5+ {[%emt 0:00:38]} 21. Nc3 {[%eval 137,18]
[%emt 0:00:02]} Bh6 {[%emt 0:00:35]} 22. Bd3 {[%eval 147,19] [%emt 0:00:09]}
Bd2+ {[%emt 0:00:35]} 23. Qxd2 {[%eval 163,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} Rxd2 {[%emt 0:
00:11]} 24. Kxd2 {[%eval 144,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} Rb8 {[%emt 0:04:50]} 25. Re1 {
[%eval 161,17] [%emt 0:00:08]} Kf8 {[%emt 0:01:18]} 26. Re3 {[%eval 164,16]
[%emt 0:00:02]} Qa3 {[%emt 0:01:04]} 27. Bc2 {[%eval 191,15] [%emt 0:00:02]}
Qb4 {[%emt 0:00:24]} 28. Rf3 {[%eval 191,17] [%emt 0:00:03]} Kg7 {[%emt 0:00:
29]} 29. Rc7 {[%eval 199,18] [%emt 0:00:05]} Qa5 {[%emt 0:00:22]} 30. Rc4 {
[%eval 196,17] [%emt 0:00:03]} h5 {[%emt 0:00:34]} 31. Rd3 {[%eval 200,15]
[%emt 0:00:01]} Rd8 {[%emt 0:00:53]} 32. Ke2 {[%eval 218,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} h4
{[%emt 0:00:21]} 33. Nd5 {[%eval 224,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qb5 {[%emt 0:00:37]}
34. Ne3 {[%eval 225,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} Kg6 {[%emt 0:01:17]} 35. Rd5 {[%eval
227,18] [%emt 0:00:03]} Qb6 {[%emt 0:00:27]} 36. Nf5 {[%eval 229,16] [%emt 0:
00:01]} Kg5 {[%emt 0:00:18]} 37. Bd1 {[%eval 227,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} a5 {[%emt
0:00:48]} 38. Kf1 {[%eval 228,17] [%emt 0:00:07]} Rc8 {[%emt 0:00:53]} 39. Rxc8
{[%eval 195,15] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qa6+ {[%emt 0:00:15]} 40. Be2 {[%eval 197,17]
[%emt 0:00:02]} Qxc8 {[%emt 0:00:16]} 41. g3 {[%eval 197,17] [%emt 0:00:01]}
Qc2 {[%emt 0:01:00]} 42. gxh4+ {[%eval 224,17] [%emt 0:00:03]} Kg6 {[%emt 0:00:
12]} 43. h5+ {[%eval 218,17] [%emt 0:00:03]} Kh7 {[%emt 0:00:25]} 44. Ne3 {
[%eval 223,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qc7 {[%emt 0:00:29]} 45. Bb5 {[%eval 211,15]
[%emt 0:00:01]} Qb8 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 46. Ng4 {[%eval 222,15] [%emt 0:00:01]}
Kg7 {[%emt 0:00:16]} 47. Kg1 {[%eval 210,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qb7 {[%emt 0:00:
34]} 48. h6+ {[%eval 203,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kh8 {[%emt 0:00:18]} 49. Nxf6 {
[%eval 233,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qe7 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 50. Ng4 {[%eval 244,19]
[%emt 0:00:01]} Qe6 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 51. Be2 {[%eval 237,19] [%emt 0:00:01]} f5
{[%emt 0:00:11]} 52. Ne3 {[%eval 236,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qg6+ {[%emt 0:00:13]}
53. Kh1 {[%eval 253,18] [%emt 0:00:02]} fxe4 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 54. Rxa5 {[%eval
261,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kg8 {[%emt 0:00:47]} 55. Ng4 {[%eval 323,17] [%emt 0:
00:01]} Qe6 {[%emt 0:00:22]} 56. Kg2 {[%eval 364,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kh7 {
[%emt 0:00:13]} 57. Ra7+ {[%eval 423,18] [%emt 0:00:03]} Kh8 {[%emt 0:00:08]}
58. Ra6 {[%eval 432,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kh7 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 59. h3 {[%eval
393,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qe7 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 60. Bc4 {[%eval 415,18] [%emt 0:
00:01]} e3 {[%emt 0:00:10]} 61. fxe3 {[%eval 438,19] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qb7+ {
[%emt 0:00:09]} 62. Kf2 {[%eval 438,21] [%emt 0:00:02]} d5 {[%emt 0:00:10]} 63.
Be2 {[%eval 449,20] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qf7+ {[%emt 0:00:11]} 64. Kg3 {[%eval 450,
20] [%emt 0:00:02]} e4 {[%emt 0:02:58]} 65. Kg2 {[%eval 475,19] [%emt 0:00:01]}
d4 {[%emt 0:00:29]} 66. exd4 {[%eval 537,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qg8 {[%emt 0:00:
37]} 67. d5 {[%eval 574,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qh8 {[%emt 0:00:17]} 68. Ra7+ {
[%eval 626,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kg6 {[%emt 0:00:16]} 69. Re7 {[%eval 666,17]
[%emt 0:00:01]} Qa1 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 70. h7 {[%eval 996,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qa8
{[%emt 0:00:32]} 71. d6 {[%eval 32742,15] [%emt 0:00:04]} Qh8 {[%emt 0:00:14]}
72. d7 {[%eval 32746,12] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qb8 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 73. Re8 {[%eval
32748,13] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qb2 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 74. h8=Q {[%eval 32750,12]
[%emt 0:00:00]} Qxe2+ {[%emt 0:00:09]} 75. Nf2 {[%eval 32752,13] [%emt 0:00:00]
} Qf3+ {[%emt 0:00:05]} 76. Kf1 {[%eval 32754,13] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qb3 {[%emt 0:
00:06]} 77. d8=Q {[%eval 32756,12] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qb5+ {[%emt 0:00:09]} 78.
Kg2 {[%eval 32758,13] [%emt 0:00:00]} Qg5+ {[%emt 0:00:07]} 79. Qxg5+ {[%eval
32760,13] [%emt 0:00:00]} Kxg5 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 80. Nxe4+ {[%eval 32762,13]
[%emt 0:00:00]} Kf4 {[%emt 0:01:14]} 81. Qh6+ {[%eval 32764,13] [%emt 0:00:00]}
Kf5 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 82. Ng3# {[%eval 32766,15] [%emt 0:00:00]} 1-0[/pgn]

[pgn][Event "Komodo vs Crafty"]
[Site "SCCT"]
[Date "2014.10.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Crafty 24.1 30m+1s"]
[Black "Komodo 8 1m+1s"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B81"]
[Annotator "Crafty 24.1"]
[PlyCount "162"]
[TimeControl "60+1"]

{512MB, Perfect2015.ctg, pc12} 1. Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d6 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:
00:00]} 2. e4 {[%emt 0:00:05]} c5 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 3. Nc3 {[%emt 0:
00:04]} Nf6 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 4. d4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} cxd4 {[%eval 0,
0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 5. Nxd4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} a6 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 6.
h3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} e6 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 7. g4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} h6 {
[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 8. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Be7 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:
00:00]} 9. Be3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nc6 {[%eval 18,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} 10. f4 {
[%emt 0:00:45]} Nd7 {[%eval 10,17] [%emt 0:00:03]} 11. Nxc6 {[%emt 0:00:46]}
bxc6 {[%eval 5,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} 12. Qd2 {[%emt 0:01:31]} Bh4+ {[%eval 5,17]
[%emt 0:00:02]} 13. Bf2 {[%emt 0:00:42]} d5 {[%eval 8,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} 14.
O-O-O {[%emt 0:00:41]} O-O {[%eval 6,17] [%emt 0:00:07]} 15. Bxh4 {[%emt 0:00:
43]} Qxh4 {[%eval 9,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} 16. Qe3 {[%emt 0:00:43]} Rb8 {[%eval 5,
16] [%emt 0:00:02]} 17. f5 {[%emt 0:00:45]} Nf6 {[%eval 13,15] [%emt 0:00:05]}
18. fxe6 {[%emt 0:00:39]} fxe6 {[%eval 19,15] [%emt 0:00:02]} 19. Rhf1 {[%emt
0:00:38]} Qg5 {[%eval 31,15] [%emt 0:00:05]} 20. Qxg5 {[%emt 0:00:37]} hxg5 {
[%eval 38,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} 21. Rfe1 {[%emt 0:12:41]} a5 {[%eval 50,16]
[%emt 0:00:06]} 22. Rd2 {[%emt 0:01:14]} Nd7 {[%eval 44,17] [%emt 0:00:07]} 23.
exd5 {[%emt 0:00:37]} exd5 {[%eval 46,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} 24. Na4 {[%emt 0:00:
35]} Ba6 {[%eval 46,17] [%emt 0:00:03]} 25. b3 {[%emt 0:00:33]} Rf7 {[%eval 46,
17] [%emt 0:00:02]} 26. Re6 {[%emt 0:00:41]} Bb5 {[%eval 37,17] [%emt 0:00:02]}
27. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:30]} Nf8 {[%eval 60,18] [%emt 0:00:03]} 28. Re1 {[%emt 0:
00:31]} Rf6 {[%eval 48,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} 29. Nxb5 {[%emt 0:00:31]} Rxb5 {
[%eval 65,18] [%emt 0:00:04]} 30. Bf1 {[%emt 0:00:45]} Rb8 {[%eval 71,19]
[%emt 0:00:03]} 31. c4 {[%emt 0:00:30]} a4 {[%eval 74,19] [%emt 0:00:02]} 32.
bxa4 {[%emt 0:00:31]} d4 {[%eval 73,19] [%emt 0:00:03]} 33. Rxd4 {[%emt 0:00:
27]} Rb4 {[%eval 81,19] [%emt 0:00:02]} 34. Bd3 {[%emt 0:01:18]} Rxa4 {[%eval
74,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} 35. Kb2 {[%emt 0:00:25]} c5 {[%eval 65,17] [%emt 0:00:
02]} 36. Rde4 {[%emt 0:00:27]} Rfa6 {[%eval 75,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} 37. Bb1 {
[%emt 0:00:32]} Kf7 {[%eval 89,18] [%emt 0:00:06]} 38. a3 {[%emt 0:00:45]} Ne6
{[%eval 67,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} 39. Rf1+ {[%emt 0:00:24]} Ke7 {[%eval 67,16]
[%emt 0:00:01]} 40. Rf3 {[%emt 0:00:24]} Rb6+ {[%eval 85,17] [%emt 0:00:01]}
41. Ka2 {[%emt 0:00:23]} Rd6 {[%eval 87,19] [%emt 0:00:02]} 42. Rf5 {[%emt 0:
00:45]} Rd2+ {[%eval 74,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} 43. Kb3 {[%emt 0:00:21]} Ra6 {
[%eval 73,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} 44. Rxg5 {[%emt 0:00:21]} Kf7 {[%eval 76,17]
[%emt 0:00:02]} 45. Rf5+ {[%emt 0:00:20]} Kg8 {[%eval 76,18] [%emt 0:00:01]}
46. Rfe5 {[%emt 0:00:20]} Kf7 {[%eval 80,18] [%emt 0:00:02]} 47. a4 {[%emt 0:
00:27]} Rb6+ {[%eval 83,18] [%emt 0:00:03]} 48. Kc3 {[%emt 0:00:19]} Rh2 {
[%eval 71,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} 49. Rf5+ {[%emt 0:00:25]} Kg8 {[%eval 49,16]
[%emt 0:00:00]} 50. Bd3 {[%emt 0:00:21]} Ra6 {[%eval 43,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} 51.
Rxe6 {[%emt 0:00:21]} Rxe6 {[%eval 43,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} 52. Rxc5 {[%emt 0:00:
18]} Rxh3 {[%eval 48,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} 53. Rd5 {[%emt 0:00:18]} Rg3 {[%eval
56,17] [%emt 0:00:03]} 54. c5 {[%emt 0:00:29]} Kf7 {[%eval 68,18] [%emt 0:00:
03]} 55. Rd4 {[%emt 0:00:25]} Kf6 {[%eval 66,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} 56. a5 {[%emt
0:00:21]} Re8 {[%eval 63,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} 57. Kc4 {[%emt 0:00:16]} Rg1 {
[%eval 74,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} 58. a6 {[%emt 0:00:25]} Rc1+ {[%eval 59,15]
[%emt 0:00:01]} 59. Kb5 {[%emt 0:00:16]} Rb8+ {[%eval 61,16] [%emt 0:00:01]}
60. Kc6 {[%emt 0:00:15]} Rc8+ {[%eval 65,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} 61. Kb6 {[%emt 0:
00:45]} R8xc5 {[%eval 68,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} 62. Bb5 {[%emt 0:00:32]} Rc8 {
[%eval 58,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} 63. a7 {[%emt 0:00:18]} Rb1 {[%eval 58,17] [%emt
0:00:01]} 64. Rd5 {[%emt 0:00:14]} Ra1 {[%eval 57,19] [%emt 0:00:02]} 65. Kb7 {
[%emt 0:00:25]} Rh8 {[%eval 68,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} 66. Rf5+ {[%emt 0:00:17]}
Ke6 {[%eval 57,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} 67. Bc4+ {[%emt 0:00:14]} Kd6 {[%eval 56,19]
[%emt 0:00:02]} 68. Rg5 {[%emt 0:00:18]} g6 {[%eval 57,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} 69.
Rd5+ {[%emt 0:00:50]} Ke7 {[%eval 45,17] [%emt 0:00:00]} 70. Rd2 {[%emt 0:00:
12]} Ra4 {[%eval 24,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} 71. Rd7+ {[%emt 0:00:18]} Kf6 {[%eval
22,17] [%emt 0:00:00]} 72. Be2 {[%emt 0:00:25]} Rb4+ {[%eval 17,18] [%emt 0:00:
02]} 73. Ka6 {[%emt 0:00:18]} Ra4+ {[%eval 19,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} 74. Kb5 {
[%emt 0:00:18]} Ra2 {[%eval 12,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} 75. Bc4 {[%emt 0:00:13]} Ra1
{[%eval 4,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} 76. Rd6+ {[%emt 0:00:15]} Kg5 {[%eval 0,20]
[%emt 0:00:01]} 77. Ra6 {[%emt 0:00:09]} Rxa6 {[%eval 0,22] [%emt 0:00:01]} 78.
Kxa6 {[%emt 0:00:09]} Kxg4 {[%eval 0,24] [%emt 0:00:01]} 79. Kb6 {[%emt 0:00:
09]} g5 {[%eval 0,23] [%emt 0:00:01]} 80. Bb5 {[%emt 0:00:09]} Kf4 {[%eval 0,
25] [%emt 0:00:01]} 81. Kb7 {[%emt 0:00:11]} g4 {[%eval 0,23] [%emt 0:00:01]}
1/2-1/2
[/pgn]


[pgn][Event "Rybka vs Crafty"]
[Site "SCCT"]
[Date "2014.10.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rybka 4.1 1m+1s"]
[Black "Crafty 24.1 30m+1s"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D27"]
[Annotator ",pc10"]
[PlyCount "145"]
[TimeControl "60+1"]

{512MB, Perfect2015.ctg, pc12} 1. d4 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} d5 {
[%emt 0:00:07]} 2. Nf3 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 3. c4
{[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} dxc4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 4. e3 {
[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} e6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 5. Bxc4 {
[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} a6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 6. O-O {
[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} c5 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 7. a4 {
[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} cxd4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 8. exd4 {
[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} Nc6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 9. Nc3 {
[%eval 28,13] [%emt 0:00:07]} Bb4 {[%emt 0:00:50]} 10. Bf4 {
[%eval 28,12] [%emt 0:00:03]} O-O {[%emt 0:00:47]} 11. Rc1 {
[%eval 27,13] [%emt 0:00:05]} Qb6 {[%emt 0:00:50]} 12. Be3 {
[%eval 27,12] [%emt 0:00:05]} Rd8 {[%emt 0:01:30]} 13. Bd3 {
[%eval 26,12] [%emt 0:00:05]} Qa5 {[%emt 0:00:45]} 14. Ne5 {
[%eval 21,12] [%emt 0:00:05]} Bd7 {[%emt 0:01:30]} 15. Nc4 {
[%eval 40,12] [%emt 0:00:06]} Qc7 {[%emt 0:00:41]} 16. Bg5 {
[%eval 52,11] [%emt 0:00:01]} Be7 {[%emt 0:00:55]} 17. Bxf6 {
[%eval 55,12] [%emt 0:00:01]} gxf6 {[%emt 0:00:42]} 18. d5 {
[%eval 77,11] [%emt 0:00:04]} Ne5 {[%emt 0:00:49]} 19. Re1 {
[%eval 83,11] [%emt 0:00:03]} Ng6 {[%emt 0:02:46]} 20. a5 {
[%eval 69,10] [%emt 0:00:02]} f5 {[%emt 0:00:38]} 21. Nb6 {
[%eval 79,11] [%emt 0:00:03]} Rab8 {[%emt 0:00:58]} 22. Qf3 {
[%eval 83,11] [%emt 0:00:05]} Kh8 {[%emt 0:00:49]} 23. Bc4 {
[%eval 85,10] [%emt 0:00:03]} Bg5 {[%emt 0:01:26]} 24. Rcd1 {
[%eval 114,10] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:34]} 25. g3 {
[%eval 98,9] [%emt 0:00:01]} Nf8 {[%emt 0:00:31]} 26. Qe3 {
[%eval 120,10] [%emt 0:00:02]} Be8 {[%emt 0:00:43]} 27. dxe6 {
[%eval 97,11] [%emt 0:00:06]} fxe6 {[%emt 0:00:30]} 28. Bxe6 {
[%eval 103,12] [%emt 0:00:02]} f4 {[%emt 0:00:29]} 29. Qe4 {
[%eval 92,12] [%emt 0:00:02]} Rxd1 {[%emt 0:02:57]} 30. Rxd1 {
[%eval 91,13] [%emt 0:00:02]} fxg3 {[%emt 0:00:36]} 31. hxg3 {
[%eval 89,14] [%emt 0:00:02]} Nxe6 {[%emt 0:00:36]} 32. Qxe6 {
[%eval 89,15] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:29]} 33. Rd6 {
[%eval 87,12] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bf7 {[%emt 0:00:26]} 34. Qd7 {
[%eval 94,13] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qc5 {[%emt 0:00:25]} 35. Ne4 {
[%eval 94,13] [%emt 0:00:02]} Qc1+ {[%emt 0:00:31]} 36. Rd1 {
[%eval 73,14] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qc2 {[%emt 0:00:31]} 37. Qd6 {
[%eval 73,14] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bg8 {[%emt 0:00:46]} 38. Qxb8 {
[%eval 63,11] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qxd1+ {[%emt 0:00:23]} 39. Kg2 {
[%eval 63,12] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qe1 {[%emt 0:00:22]} 40. Qxb7 {
[%eval 63,12] [%emt 0:00:01]} Qxa5 {[%emt 0:00:26]} 41. Nd6 {
[%eval 74,13] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bd4 {[%emt 0:00:22]} 42. Nbc4 {
[%eval 65,13] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bd5+ {[%emt 0:00:24]} 43. f3 {
[%eval 67,15] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bxb7 {[%emt 0:00:23]} 44. Nxa5 {
[%eval 63,18] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bd5 {[%emt 0:00:24]} 45. Nac4 {
[%eval 64,18] [%emt 0:00:02]} h5 {[%emt 0:00:29]} 46. Nf5 {
[%eval 68,17] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:23]} 47. b3 {
[%eval 73,18] [%emt 0:00:02]} Kg8 {[%emt 0:00:25]} 48. Nfe3 {
[%eval 73,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bb7 {[%emt 0:00:38]} 49. Nd6 {
[%eval 80,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} Bc6 {[%emt 0:00:54]} 50. Ne4 {
[%eval 88,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bd8 {[%emt 0:00:35]} 51. Nc4 {
[%eval 90,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bd5 {[%emt 0:00:24]} 52. Kf2 {
[%eval 87,14] [%emt 0:00:01]} a5 {[%emt 0:00:20]} 53. Nc3 {
[%eval 96,14] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bxc4 {[%emt 0:00:18]} 54. bxc4 {
[%eval 95,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kf7 {[%emt 0:00:19]} 55. Ke3 {
[%eval 106,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} Be7 {[%emt 0:00:22]} 56. Kd4 {
[%eval 35534,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bf6+ {[%emt 0:00:26]} 57. Kd3 {
[%eval 126,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Be7 {[%emt 0:00:19]} 58. f4 {
[%eval 106,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Ke6 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 59. Ke4 {
[%eval 35534,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kd6 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 60. Na4 {
[%eval 144,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:41]} 61. Kf5 {
[%eval 132,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} Be7 {[%emt 0:00:18]} 62. Kg6 {
[%eval 131,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} h4 {[%emt 0:00:19]} 63. gxh4 {
[%eval 108,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bxh4 {[%emt 0:00:13]} 64. c5+ {
[%eval 108,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kd5 {[%emt 0:00:53]} 65. f5 {
[%eval 108,19] [%emt 0:00:01]} Ke5 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 66. Nb6 {
[%eval 101,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bd8 {[%emt 0:00:16]} 67. Kf7 {
[%eval 101,17] [%emt 0:00:01]} Kxf5 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 68. Ke8 {
[%eval 101,18] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bc7 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 69. Kd7 {
[%eval 101,16] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bh2 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 70. c6 {
[%eval 72,13] [%emt 0:00:01]} Ke4 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 71. c7 {
[%eval 37,15] [%emt 0:00:01]} Bxc7 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 72. Kxc7 {
[%eval 37,19] [%emt 0:00:01]} a4 {[%emt 0:00:09]} 73. Nxa4 {
[%eval 38,20] [%emt 0:00:01]} 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

[pgn][Event "Rybka vs Crafty"]
[Site "SCCT"]
[Date "2014.10.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Crafty 24.1 30m+1s"]
[Black "Rybka 4.1 1m+1s"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B12"]
[Annotator "Crafty 24.1"]
[PlyCount "120"]
[TimeControl "60+1"]

{512MB, Perfect2015.ctg, pc12} 1. e4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} c6 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:
00:00]} 2. d4 {[%emt 0:00:06]} d5 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 3. e5 {[%emt 0:
00:03]} Bf5 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 4. Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} e6 {[%eval 0,
0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 5. Be2 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nd7 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 6.
c3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} f6 {[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 7. O-O {[%emt 0:00:03]} Qc7
{[%eval 0,0] [%emt 0:00:00]} 8. Bf4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} O-O-O {[%eval 0,0] [%emt
0:00:00]} 9. Bd3 {[%emt 0:02:53]} fxe5 {[%eval 8,13] [%emt 0:00:04]} 10. dxe5 {
[%emt 0:02:13]} Ne7 {[%eval -11,13] [%emt 0:00:05]} 11. Bxf5 {[%emt 0:01:17]}
Nxf5 {[%eval -11,14] [%emt 0:00:03]} 12. Nbd2 {[%emt 0:01:23]} h6 {[%eval -24,
14] [%emt 0:00:03]} 13. g4 {[%emt 0:01:32]} g5 {[%eval -43,14] [%emt 0:00:04]}
14. gxf5 {[%emt 0:00:43]} gxf4 {[%eval -42,14] [%emt 0:00:04]} 15. fxe6 {[%emt
0:00:40]} Nc5 {[%eval -42,14] [%emt 0:00:04]} 16. Kh1 {[%emt 0:01:03]} Nxe6 {
[%eval -33,13] [%emt 0:00:07]} 17. Nd4 {[%emt 0:00:40]} Re8 {[%eval -38,14]
[%emt 0:00:01]} 18. Qg4 {[%emt 0:00:59]} Qg7 {[%eval -37,13] [%emt 0:00:03]}
19. Qh5 {[%emt 0:00:50]} Qd7 {[%eval -33,12] [%emt 0:00:03]} 20. Rg1 {[%emt 0:
01:17]} Bc5 {[%eval -40,13] [%emt 0:00:02]} 21. N2f3 {[%emt 0:01:19]} Ng5 {
[%eval -45,13] [%emt 0:00:02]} 22. Rae1 {[%emt 0:00:33]} Bxd4 {[%eval -48,12]
[%emt 0:00:03]} 23. cxd4 {[%emt 0:00:38]} Qf5 {[%eval -33,12] [%emt 0:00:02]}
24. Nh4 {[%emt 0:00:49]} Qd3 {[%eval -36,12] [%emt 0:00:02]} 25. Qd1 {[%emt 0:
01:05]} Ne4 {[%eval -47,13] [%emt 0:00:01]} 26. Re2 {[%emt 0:00:29]} Qh3 {
[%eval -134,13] [%emt 0:00:03]} 27. Rxe4 {[%emt 0:00:32]} dxe4 {[%eval -134,14]
[%emt 0:00:03]} 28. Ng6 {[%emt 0:00:25]} Rh7 {[%eval -146,15] [%emt 0:00:03]}
29. Nxf4 {[%emt 0:02:02]} Qf5 {[%eval -158,14] [%emt 0:00:03]} 30. Nh5 {[%emt
0:01:35]} Rd8 {[%eval -165,12] [%emt 0:00:02]} 31. Ng7 {[%emt 0:00:35]} Qxf2 {
[%eval -183,13] [%emt 0:00:05]} 32. Ne6 {[%emt 0:00:35]} Rdh8 {[%eval -198,12]
[%emt 0:00:02]} 33. Qg4 {[%emt 0:01:06]} Re7 {[%eval -193,13] [%emt 0:00:02]}
34. Rg2 {[%emt 0:00:50]} Qf1+ {[%eval -303,14] [%emt 0:00:04]} 35. Rg1 {[%emt
0:00:05]} Qf3+ {[%eval -333,14] [%emt 0:00:01]} 36. Qxf3 {[%emt 0:00:26]} exf3
{[%eval -333,16] [%emt 0:00:02]} 37. Rg6 {[%emt 0:00:51]} Ree8 {[%eval -345,16]
[%emt 0:00:02]} 38. Nc5 {[%emt 0:00:42]} Rhg8 {[%eval -371,13] [%emt 0:00:02]}
39. Rg3 {[%emt 0:00:34]} Rxg3 {[%eval -447,14] [%emt 0:00:01]} 40. hxg3 {[%emt
0:00:06]} Rg8 {[%eval -458,15] [%emt 0:00:02]} 41. Kg1 {[%emt 0:01:13]} Rxg3+ {
[%eval -479,15] [%emt 0:00:02]} 42. Kf2 {[%emt 0:00:18]} Rg2+ {[%eval -491,16]
[%emt 0:00:02]} 43. Kxf3 {[%emt 0:00:17]} Rxb2 {[%eval -491,16] [%emt 0:00:02]}
44. Ne4 {[%emt 0:00:34]} Rxa2 {[%eval -519,15] [%emt 0:00:02]} 45. Nf6 {[%emt
0:01:04]} a5 {[%eval -629,12] [%emt 0:00:02]} 46. d5 {[%emt 0:00:36]} cxd5 {
[%eval -679,11] [%emt 0:00:01]} 47. e6 {[%emt 0:00:18]} Kd8 {[%eval -759,12]
[%emt 0:00:01]} 48. Ke3 {[%emt 0:00:36]} a4 {[%eval -926,12] [%emt 0:00:01]}
49. e7+ {[%emt 0:01:00]} Kxe7 {[%eval -1038,14] [%emt 0:00:02]} 50. Ng8+ {
[%emt 0:01:15]} Kd6 {[%eval -1239,13] [%emt 0:00:01]} 51. Nf6 {[%emt 0:01:00]}
a3 {[%eval -1899,12] [%emt 0:00:01]} 52. Ng4 {[%emt 0:00:10]} Rb2 {[%eval
-32743,11] [%emt 0:00:01]} 53. Nf2 {[%emt 0:00:17]} a2 {[%eval -32753,17]
[%emt 0:00:01]} 54. Nd3 {[%emt 0:00:07]} Rb3 {[%eval -32755,19] [%emt 0:00:01]}
55. Kd2 {[%emt 0:00:12]} a1=Q {[%eval -32757,22] [%emt 0:00:01]} 56. Ne1 {
[%emt 0:00:10]} Qc3+ {[%eval -32759,23] [%emt 0:00:01]} 57. Ke2 {[%emt 0:00:08]
} Rb2+ {[%eval -32761,27] [%emt 0:00:01]} 58. Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:07]} Qf6+ {
[%eval -32761,31] [%emt 0:00:01]} 59. Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:23]} Qxf3+ {[%eval
-32763,38] [%emt 0:00:02]} 60. Kg1 {[%emt 0:00:06]} Qg2# {[%eval -32765,53]
[%emt 0:00:01]} 0-1
[/pgn]

[Sedat Canbaz]

Komodo 3m+1s wins the duel !!

Note: This time Komodo 3m+1s was under Shredder Classic GUI
For example, the previous duel was:
-Komodo 2m+1s under Arena GUI
-Stockfish 1m+1s under Shredder Classic GUI

I really wonder, (there is 88 Elo difference, error margin is too large...)
Just with 1 minute of increasing the time control of Komodo can gain so good performance ??
I am not sure exactly...maybe Komodo or Stockfish suffers under Arena 2.0.1 GUI )?
So....I will re-run again the test, but this time Komodo 3m+1s will be under Arena 2.0.1 GUI

Also later,
I plan to run another duel: 3m+2s vs 40/2 (SCCT vs CCRL)
Let's see which time control is better for chess engines ?!


Best,
Sedat

[Sedat Canbaz]

I've just installed Arena 3.5 GUI
So...I plan to test K8 under Arena 3.5 GUI
I think Arena 3.5 seems to be more stable than older 2.0.1 version

Note: Auto232 mode did not work under Arena 3 GUI