CEGT 40/20 update (August 05th 2007)

[Werner]

Hi all ,

Our newest rating list and games for download are now online. All links at the end of the posting as usual.

40/20
New engines in our list are Fruit 05/11/03 and Bright 0.2a from Allard Siemelink. We have updated results mainly from Hiarcs 11.2 MP and Naum 2.2 MP.

Fruit 05/11/03
Fabiens last beta has a rating of 2829 elos after 358 games. This is very close to the Lacrosse setting of Fruit 2.3.

Bright 0.2a
This engine we got direct from the author. 2693 elos after 197 games is a very good result!

Hiarcs 11.2 2CPU
The update of Hiarcs has had a promising start rating after 190 games. But now with 620 games the rating drops down and we can see no more improvement over Hiarcs 11.1.

Naum 2.2 x64 2CPU
Naum 2.2 could hold its good start rating. The improvement over version 2.1 are solid 46 points.

40/120
For this list we have played nearly 11500 games. The new engines from last week doing very well.
Naum 2.2 x64 2CPU is 72 points in front of the previous version with 2922 elos (+-33). Hiarcs 11.2 MP is now 27 points in front of Hiarcs 11. We did not test version 11.1. Fruit 2.3 agg could hold its rating with more than 50 elos compared to version Fruit 2.2.

A big thanks to all testers as usual.

Links:
All-Versions: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html
Best-Versions: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html
Blitz: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/blitz.htm (also with Best-Versions and All-Versions lists)
40/120: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_120_ ... liste.html
Replay-Zone: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/Replay/replay.htm
Elo comparison 40/120 and 40/20: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/Replay/ ... arison.htm
Testers with picture and Hardware: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/testers/testers.html

Werner Schüle
CEGT-Team

[Graham Banks]

Nice report Werner and I mean that sincerely.

Regards, Graham.

[naum]

Thanks guys for running so many games with Naum despite the ongoing fruit avalanche
I am esspecialy impressed by the number of 40/120 games. Heinz must be having a basement full of hardware and a dedicated power plant in his back yard.
Naum's search is unstable on lower depths. That's why I expect a better performance at longer time controls.

Regards,
Alex

[Uri Blass]

Thanks guys for running so many games with Naum despite the ongoing fruit avalanche
I am esspecialy impressed by the number of 40/120 games. Heinz must be having a basement full of hardware and a dedicated power plant in his back yard.
Naum's search is unstable on lower depths. That's why I expect a better performance at longer time controls.

Regards,
Alex

There may be other explanations for Naum's better performance at longer time control(like better order of moves than the opponents)

I find that Naum is the engine that earned more rating from the change in time control from 40/20 to 40/120 relative to other engines(36 elo)
Second place is Deep Junior 10(29 elo).

Here is rating comparison.
from 40/20
1 Rybka 2.3.2a x64 2CPU 3047 15 15 1472 74.1 % 2865 36.2 %
3 Rybka 2.3 x64 2CPU 3015 23 23 623 72.6 % 2846 33.7 %
7 Rybka 2.1c/o x64 2CPU 3006 15 15 1450 71.0 % 2851 34.3 %
14 Rybka 1.2f x64 2954 18 18 1282 76.7 % 2748 27.5 %

17 Zap!Chess Zanzibar x64 2CPU 2930 13 13 1654 57.0 % 2881 42.8 %
25 Deep Fritz 10 2CPU 2893 12 12 2226 55.3 % 2856 36.5 %
29 Naum 2.2 x64 2CPU 2886 20 20 716 53.3 % 2863
35 Hiarcs 11.2 2CPU 2873 21 21 620 50.1 % 2872 39.8 %
38 Deep Shredder 10 x64 2CPU 2860 11 11 2510 50.7 % 2855 38.3 %
40 Hiarcs 11 2CPU 2859 15 15 1364 52.4 % 2842 37.2 %
43 Loop 13.5 x64 2CPU 2854 14 14 1433 52.0 % 2840 42.9 %
45 ListMP 11.64 2CPU 2849 14 14 1385 48.7 % 2858 38.3 %
46 Zap!Chess Paderborn x64 2CPU 2840 12 12 1917 50.2 % 2838
47 Naum 2.1 x64 2CPU 2840 12 12 1939 48.5 % 2850 43.3 %
53 Fritz 10 2826 9 9 3502 54.0 % 2798 33.9 %
54 Spike 1.2 Turin 2CPU 2823 11 11 2263 45.3 % 2855 39.7 %
62 Fruit 2.3 agg 2808 22 22 628 48.6 % 2818 36.3 %
64 Deep Junior 10 2CPU 2802 16 16 1177 44.9 % 2838 34.8 %
66 Toga II 1.2.1a 2801 8 8 5160 53.0 % 2780 35.6 %
74 Hiarcs X50 UCI 2781 15 15 1360 52.9 % 2760 36.4 %
75 Fritz 9 2781 8 8 5081 55.5 % 2742 31.3 %
77 Fruit 2.2.1 2777 6 6 8038 58.6 % 2717 34.5 %
78 Spike 1.2 Turin 2772 11 11 2267 53.3 % 2748 37.8 %
80 Hiarcs 10 2770 11 11 2677 50.4 % 2767 35.6 %
88 Ktulu 8.0 2760 12 12 1951 49.3 % 2765 35.1 %
92 Glaurung 1.2.1 x64 2CPU 2745 13 13 1686 47.0 % 2766 34.9 %
103 Chess Tiger 2007 2727 15 15 1319 50.3 % 2725 38.8 %

from 40/120
1 Rybka 2.3.2a 64 2CPU 3048 20 20 832 77.4 % 2834 35.3 % (+1 elo)
2 Rybka 2.1c 64 2CPU 2997 21 20 769 72.2 % 2831 35.9 % (-9 elo)
3 Rybka 2.3 64 2CPU 2997 20 20 786 72.1 % 2831 38.2 % (-18 elo)
4 Rybka 1.2f 64-bit 2959 18 18 950 70.3 % 2810 36.8 % (+5 elo)
5 Zap!Chess Zanzibar 64 2CPU 2935 16 16 1026 62.5 % 2846 46.1 %(+5 elo)
6 Naum 2.2 x64 2CPU 2922 33 33 207 54.3 % 2892 50.7 %(+36 elo)
7 Deep Fritz 10 2CPU 2880 17 17 1025 55.3 % 2843 39.1 %(-13 elo)
8 HIARCS 11.2 2CPU 2873 45 45 131 46.6 % 2897 42.7 %(same elo)
9 Deep Shredder 10 x64 2CPU 2854 16 16 1027 49.5 % 2857 40.6 %(-6 elo)
10 Naum 2.1 x64 2CPU 2850 15 15 1100 50.6 % 2846 47.1 %(+10 elo)
11 List 11.64 2CPU 2848 17 17 952 48.3 % 2860 41.7 % (-1 elo)
12 HIARCS 11 2CPU 2846 17 17 1000 49.0 % 2852 39.3 %(-13 elo)
13 Loop 13.5 2CPU 2838 18 18 850 46.4 % 2863 41.4 % (-16 elo)
14 Zap!Chess Paderborn 64 2CPU 2837 18 18 876 48.0 % 2851 41.4 %(-3 elo)
15 Deep Junior 10 2CPU 2831 18 18 1000 47.7 % 2847 33.8 %(+29 elo)
16 Spike 1.2 Turin 2CPU 2830 16 16 1000 46.4 % 2855 42.0 %(+7 elo)
17 Fruit 2.3 agg 2830 23 23 488 44.1 % 2871 43.0 % (+22 elo)
18 Fritz 10 2805 19 19 904 45.8 % 2834 33.0 % (-21 elo)
19 Toga II 1.2.1 2801 16 16 1100 43.6 % 2846 41.5 %(same elo)
20 Hiarcs 10 2788 17 17 950 41.5 % 2847 38.6 % (+18 elo)
21 Spike 1.2 Turin 2779 17 17 1000 40.8 % 2844 37.7 %(+7 elo)
22 Fruit 2.2 2776 17 17 1050 40.0 % 2846 39.0 %(-1 elo)
23 Hiarcs X50 UCI 2765 19 19 755 42.5 % 2817 40.3 %(-16 elo)
24 Fritz 9 2762 21 21 650 44.5 % 2800 37.8 % (-19 elo)
25 Glaurung 1.2 2CPU 2747 17 17 1000 38.9 % 2826 38.6 %(+2 elo)
26 Ktulu 8 2738 19 20 800 39.2 % 2814 35.8 %(-22 elo)
27 Chess Tiger 2007 2710 20 20 752 34.4 % 2822 39.1 %(-17 elo)

[Werner]

Thanks for the comparison list, Uri
I often saw you are studiing the lists very detailed!

[naum]

There may be other explanations for Naum's better performance at longer time control(like better order of moves than the opponents)

It could be many other things like time management or just statistical noise since the error bars are high. My guess is search, because during the search Naum collects some statistics (not just history pruning) which get more accurate with each new depth.

[Werner]

test

[Werner]