CCRL rating lists updated (4th July 2008)

[Graham Banks]

The July 4th update of the CCRL Rating Lists and Statistics is now available for viewing at:
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

Our standard testing is at 40 moves in 40 minutes repeating and our blitz testing is at 40 moves in 4 minutes repeating, both adjusted to the AMD64 X2 4600+ (2.4GHz).

Currently active testers are:
Graham Banks, Ray Banks, Shaun Brewer, Kirill Kryukov, Dom Leste, Tom Logan, Andreas Schwartmann, Charles Smith, George Speight, Gabor Szots and Chuck Wilson.


During the early stages of testing, an engine's rating can often fluctuate a lot.
One should also look at the many other rating lists available in order to get a more accurate overall picture of an engine's rating relative to others.


Our 40/40 list usually gets updated during the week also and can be viewed here:
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040.live/
However, no game downloads are available from the live link.

The links to the various rating lists can be found just beneath the default Best Versions list.
For example there is a 32-bit Single CPU list.


Our latest 40/4 ratings can be found at one of the following links:
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404/
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404.live/


Our FRC 40/4 rating lists can be found here:
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404FRC/

Only those engines that can play FRC through the Shredder Classic GUI are tested.


The LOS (likelihood of superiority) stats to the right hand side of each rating list tell you the likelihood in percentage terms of each engine being superior to the engine directly below them.

All games are available for download by engine, by month or by ECO code.
ELO ratings are now saved in all game databases for those engines that have 200 games or more.

Clicking on an engine name will give details as to opponents played plus homepage links where applicable.

Custom lists of engines can be selected for comparison.

An openings report page lists the number of games played by ECO codes with draw percentage and White win percentage. Clicking on a column heading will sort the list by that column.

[IWB]

Hello Graham,

for some particular and private reasons I am mainly interested in your single rating list (40/40). Now I can see for several issues that the Number 3 in that list, Shredder 11x64, is rated with just 288 games while some other much "weaker" engines have a couple of thousand games.

Do you plan to secure the rating of Shredder with some additional games? I personaly would like to see at least 500 games for the top 10 single engines if possible vs a bunch of different engines. I know this is a lot of work, but as it is single it will go much faster than your Quad testing!

Thanks for any answer
Ingo

[pedrox]

Graham, I see that DanaSah 3.63 has fallen from the list 40/40, maybe because they do not have enough games and possibly CCRL play with a new version?

Best,

Pedro

[Graham Banks]

Graham, I see that DanaSah 3.63 has fallen from the list 40/40, maybe because they do not have enough games and possibly CCRL play with a new version?

Best,

Pedro

Hi Pedro,

Shaun is going to run some more games using DanaSah 3.63 so that it can be reinstated on the list.
The new version will be tested eventually also.

Regards, Graham.

[Graham Banks]

Hello Graham,

for some particular and private reasons I am mainly interested in your single rating list (40/40). Now I can see for several issues that the Number 3 in that list, Shredder 11x64, is rated with just 288 games while some other much "weaker" engines have a couple of thousand games.

Do you plan to secure the rating of Shredder with some additional games? I personaly would like to see at least 500 games for the top 10 single engines if possible vs a bunch of different engines. I know this is a lot of work, but as it is single it will go much faster than your Quad testing!

Thanks for any answer
Ingo

Hi Ingo,

I'll draw your concern to the attention of the other testers. I don't have 64-bit computers, so it will be up to those who do.

Regards, Graham.

[Beast]

Hi,

It might be interesting if you could test the w32 version of Shredder as it seems I remember it to be slightly stronger....

Best,

Todd

[IWB]

Hello all

Hi,

It might be interesting if you could test the w32 version of Shredder as it seems I remember it to be slightly stronger....

Best,

Todd

Thx Graham, for considering my "request"!

Todd, the 64 bit version is ~1ß% faster, therefore it should be a tiny little bit stronger. To prove that you might need a couple of thousand games - so not worth to seek for a difference. If there is a difference in any rating list (and there is!) it is just because of the number of games and choosen opponents. I can not imagine any other reason!

Looking forward for any additional result
Ingo

[Beast]

Hi,

I found the link to what made me think that.... It seems the difference wasn't that much... http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_4_Ra ... liste.html . On the blitz list S11x32 4cpu 2956 (+/- 16) is 9 rating points ahead of s11x64 4cpu 2947 (+/- 13), but it could be noise as you say. On the other lists I don't think they tested the 4cpu w32 version.

Best,

Todd

[pedrox]

Graham, I see that DanaSah 3.63 has fallen from the list 40/40, maybe because they do not have enough games and possibly CCRL play with a new version?

Best,

Pedro

Hi Pedro,

Shaun is going to run some more games using DanaSah 3.63 so that it can be reinstated on the list.
The new version will be tested eventually also.

Regards, Graham.

Hi Graham,

perhaps two versions can joined (3.13 and 3.63), 3.63 is equal to 3.13 but can play FRC, I correct a small error in the king safety that does not seem to affect the level of the game.

Version 3.70 appears to be a little stronger than both and in a short time a new version.

Best,

Pedro

[Graham Banks]

Hi Graham,

perhaps two versions can joined (3.13 and 3.63), 3.63 is equal to 3.13 but can play FRC, I correct a small error in the king safety that does not seem to affect the level of the game.

Version 3.70 appears to be a little stronger than both and in a short time a new version.

Best,

Pedro

Hi Pedro,

I'll run this suggestion past the others to see if we can combine as you suggest.

Regards, Graham.