CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:06 am

The July 11th update of the CCRL Rating Lists and Statistics is 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, Shaun Brewer, Kirill Kryukov, Dom Leste, Tom Logan, Charles Smith, George Speight, Gabor Szots and Chuck Wilson.
Other team members are:
Ray Banks, Eric Lamar, Arnaud Loheac, Bill Rogers, Andreas Schwartmann, Joshua Shriver, Chris Taylor and Martin Thoresen.

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.

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:07 am

Ray has just done a live update.

Edsel Apostol · Post by **Edsel Apostol** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:34 am

Thanks Graham and CCRL! Great result for Twisted entering the top 20.

Tony Thomas · Post by **Tony Thomas** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:54 am

You are not surprised are you? Here on my computer it is rank # 20, provided that I do not have fritz or loop, it would be rank 22, premier division material.

IWB · Post by **IWB** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:00 pm

Hello Graham.

as you know I am interested in Shredder, because of that I had a closer look into your statistics
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... 4-bit_1CPU

Do I interprete that list correct? You include a couple of opponents where Shredder played just ONE single game? If so I think that is, regardless if a win or a loss, at least "strange".

On the other hand the opponent with the most games is Naum (3.1 and 2.2 = 112 games out of 368, roughly 1/3 of all games). If you now see that Shredder underperformes vs this major part of its opponents the rating is correct, but too low compared to ALL opponents. (I am not blaming Naum for beeing better in a direct comparision than Shredder!)

This criticism is not because it is Shredder, I just checked there. It is most likely valid for some other engines to the positiv or to the negative direction. I strongly think that for a usefull rating list the number of opponents should be as high as possible AND the number of games vs these opponents should be equal.

Nevertheless I have all respect for the huge work you as a team are doing! Thanks for that.

Bye
Ingo

IWB · Post by **IWB** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:18 pm

IWB wrote:Hello Graham.

as you know I am interested in Shredder, because of that I had a closer look into your statistics
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... 4-bit_1CPU

Do I interprete that list correct? You include a couple of opponents where Shredder played just ONE single game? If so I think that is, regardless if a win or a loss, at least "strange".

On the other hand the opponent with the most games is Naum (3.1 and 2.2 = 112 games out of 368, roughly 1/3 of all games). If you now see that Shredder underperformes vs this major part of its opponents the rating is correct, but too low compared to ALL opponents. (I am not blaming Naum for beeing better in a direct comparision than Shredder!)

This criticism is not because it is Shredder, I just checked there. It is most likely valid for some other engines to the positiv or to the negative direction. I strongly think that for a usefull rating list the number of opponents should be as high as possible AND the number of games vs these opponents should be equal.

Nevertheless I have all respect for the huge work you as a team are doing! Thanks for that.

Bye
Ingo

... and of course thanks for playing more games with Shredder! I see that you as a team did the effort in the last week and I appreciate that!

One more question, as I see that the rating of Shredder dropped during the latest testing, is there a possibility to see vs what opponent these recent games where played?

Thx again,
Ingo

ernest · Post by **ernest** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:05 pm

Graham, concerning Naum, what is Naum 3.1 64-bit PTnormal?

Thanks

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:57 pm

IWB wrote:
IWB wrote:Hello Graham.

as you know I am interested in Shredder, because of that I had a closer look into your statistics
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/40 ... 4-bit_1CPU

Do I interprete that list correct? You include a couple of opponents where Shredder played just ONE single game? If so I think that is, regardless if a win or a loss, at least "strange".

On the other hand the opponent with the most games is Naum (3.1 and 2.2 = 112 games out of 368, roughly 1/3 of all games). If you now see that Shredder underperformes vs this major part of its opponents the rating is correct, but too low compared to ALL opponents. (I am not blaming Naum for beeing better in a direct comparision than Shredder!)

This criticism is not because it is Shredder, I just checked there. It is most likely valid for some other engines to the positiv or to the negative direction. I strongly think that for a usefull rating list the number of opponents should be as high as possible AND the number of games vs these opponents should be equal.

Nevertheless I have all respect for the huge work you as a team are doing! Thanks for that.

Bye
Ingo
... and of course thanks for playing more games with Shredder! I see that you as a team did the effort in the last week and I appreciate that!

One more question, as I see that the rating of Shredder dropped during the latest testing, is there a possibility to see vs what opponent these recent games where played?

Thx again,
Ingo

Hi Ingo,

I'll get Shaun to answer your questions as he is the one carrying out further Shredder 11 64-bit 1CPU testing.

Regards, Graham.

Graham Banks · Post by **Graham Banks** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:58 pm

ernest wrote:Graham, concerning Naum, what is Naum 3.1 64-bit PTnormal?
Thanks

Hi Ernest,

I'll get Shaun to explain.

Regards, Graham.

Norm Pollock · Post by **Norm Pollock** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 10:02 pm

Hi Graham,

I noticed that there are 6 "Beta" versions of Toga in the 40/40 lists. I did not see any "Beta" versions for other engines. Why only Toga?

And why is the "Beta" testing included in the engine ratings? Why doesn't CCRL wait until the final released version of each Toga version is out before doing an engine rating test?

-Norm

CCRL update (11th July 2008)

CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)

Re: CCRL update (11th July 2008)