Open Source Blitz Rating List: Pepito 1.59, IvanHoe 999946h

[lucasart]

Added Pepito 1.59, and running IvanHoe 999946h. So far IvanHoe only played 50 games against Stockfish. Another 150 to go (50 against each of Protector, Umko, Toga). Will post the final result when it's finished. It may be too early to say whether IvanHoe 999946h is really stronger than 999946a, but at least on 50 games against Stockfish it scored slightly better.

Results

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3228   71   70    50   57%  3186   42% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3186   43   41   250   80%  2915   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2938   37   36   250   61%  2859   25% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2871   30   30   350   57%  2822   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2846   29   29   400   59%  2781   24% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2735   29   29   350   56%  2690   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2694   29   29   400   36%  2815   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2656   30   30   350   44%  2701   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2651   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2472   38   41   250   21%  2706   18% 

Conditions
* Open Source and Portable engines only: not interested in closed source, commercial, or windows only programs.
* Copyleft: Ideally licensed under the GNU GPL, or with copyright restrictions that are not excessive.
* 1min+1sec/move, 64 MB Hash, 1 Thread, 64-bit, Ponder off.
* 8 book moves: neither to little, nor too much. Allows engines to develop their own plan, while offering a large enough number of opening positions.
* Bayeselo, offset Fruit 2.1 = 2700 elo.

[lucasart]

IvanHoe after 100 games (50 vs Stockfish, 50 vs Protector)

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3238   59   56   100   73%  3063   29% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3189   43   41   250   80%  2917   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2937   34   34   300   53%  2923   24% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2871   31   30   350   57%  2822   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2846   29   29   400   59%  2782   24% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2735   29   29   350   56%  2690   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2694   29   29   400   36%  2816   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2656   30   30   350   44%  2701   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2651   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2473   38   40   250   21%  2706   18% 

IvanHoe is a beast, and certainly the strongest open source chess engine in existence. A real shame all well established rating lists don't want to test it...

[lucasart]

IvanHoe 999946h after 150 games: 50 vs Stockfish, 50 vs Protector, 50 vs Umko

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3189   50   47   150   75%  2993   27% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3171   42   40   250   80%  2907   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2929   34   33   300   53%  2912   24% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2878   29   29   400   53%  2865   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2844   29   29   400   59%  2780   24% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2736   29   29   350   56%  2691   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2693   29   29   400   36%  2813   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2657   30   30   350   44%  2702   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2652   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2473   38   41   250   21%  2706   18% 

[lucasart]

Finished testing IvanHoe. So its #1 open source place is confirmed, with a margin of 20 elo

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3192   45   43   200   79%  2956   24% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3172   42   40   250   80%  2907   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2930   34   33   300   53%  2913   24% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2878   29   29   400   53%  2865   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2844   28   28   450   53%  2826   23% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2736   29   29   350   56%  2691   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2693   29   29   400   36%  2814   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2656   30   30   350   44%  2702   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2652   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2473   38   40   250   21%  2706   18% 

[Adam Hair]

IvanHoe after 100 games (50 vs Stockfish, 50 vs Protector)

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3238   59   56   100   73%  3063   29% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3189   43   41   250   80%  2917   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2937   34   34   300   53%  2923   24% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2871   31   30   350   57%  2822   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2846   29   29   400   59%  2782   24% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2735   29   29   350   56%  2690   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2694   29   29   400   36%  2816   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2656   30   30   350   44%  2701   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2651   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2473   38   40   250   21%  2706   18% 

IvanHoe is a beast, and certainly the strongest open source chess engine in existence. A real shame all well established rating lists don't want to test it...

Who do you think we test engines for (besides for our own benefit)? Authors.
Who is the author of IvanHoe?

[lucasart]

IvanHoe after 100 games (50 vs Stockfish, 50 vs Protector)

Code: Select all

Rank Name                  Elo    +    - games score oppo. draws 
   1 IvanHoe 999946h      3238   59   56   100   73%  3063   29% 
   2 Stockfish 2.2.1      3189   43   41   250   80%  2917   21% 
   3 Protector 1.4        2937   34   34   300   53%  2923   24% 
   4 Umko 1.2             2871   31   30   350   57%  2822   27% 
   5 Toga 1.4.1           2846   29   29   400   59%  2782   24% 
   6 Daydreamer 1.75      2735   29   29   350   56%  2690   29% 
   7 Fruit 2.1            2700   28   28   400   46%  2725   25% 
   8 Crafty 23.4          2694   29   29   400   36%  2816   24% 
   9 GNU Chess 5.07.173b  2656   30   30   350   44%  2701   25% 
  10 Pepito 1.59          2592   35   35   250   42%  2651   24% 
  11 Greko 9.0            2473   38   40   250   21%  2706   18% 

IvanHoe is a beast, and certainly the strongest open source chess engine in existence. A real shame all well established rating lists don't want to test it...

Who do you think we test engines for (besides for our own benefit)? Authors.
Who is the author of IvanHoe?

oh, is that the argument ?
...

[kranium]

Who do you think we test engines for (besides for our own benefit)? Authors.
Who is the author of IvanHoe?

this ugly statement confirms what i have been saying for a long time...
the CCRL cares only about themselves and program authors?
the CCRL has no interest in presenting fair, all-inclusive, and unbiased information to the many millions of 'ordinary enthusiasts'?

the fact that CCRL accepts complimentary copies of commercial engines, while at the same time excluding a comparably strong/stronger 'free' alternative engine
(IvanHoe) from their rating lists is irresponsible to the community...

the CCRL (CEGT and IPON as well) promote commercial engines (2 of which have have been severely tainted with allegations of plagiarism) while simultaneously withholding
info that could/should be made available to 'newbies' (and all users) to aid them in their choice of engine, and purchasing decisions?

any group with such influence and power should be held responsible to the community, and expected to deliver inclusive, fair, and unbiased information.
they should absolutely refuse free copies (just like Consumer Reports, etc.), thereby eliminating any and all possibilities of undue influence, abuse, cronyism, graft, etc.

the CCC community should have none of it, and respond simply by boycotting these misguided rating groups.

[lucasart]

Who do you think we test engines for (besides for our own benefit)? Authors.
Who is the author of IvanHoe?

this ugly statement confirms what i have been saying for a long time...
the CCRL cares only about themselves and program authors?
the CCRL has no interest in presenting fair, all-inclusive, and unbiased information to the many millions of 'ordinary enthusiasts'?

the fact that CCRL accepts complimentary copies of commercial engines, while at the same time excluding a comparably strong/stronger 'free' alternative engine
(IvanHoe) from their rating lists is irresponsible to the community...

the CCRL (CEGT and IPON as well) promote commercial engines (2 of which have have been severely tainted with allegations of plagiarism) while simultaneously withholding
info that could/should be made available to 'newbies' (and all users) to aid them in their choice of engine, and purchasing decisions?

any group with such influence and power should be held responsible to the community, and expected to deliver inclusive, fair, and unbiased information.
they should absolutely refuse free copies (just like Consumer Reports, etc.), thereby eliminating any and all possibilities of undue influence, abuse, cronyism, graft, etc.

the CCC community should have none of it, and respond simply by boycotting these misguided rating groups.

you're putting it a bit harshly, but in principle, I agree with you

[kranium]

Who do you think we test engines for (besides for our own benefit)? Authors.
Who is the author of IvanHoe?

this ugly statement confirms what i have been saying for a long time...
the CCRL cares only about themselves and program authors?
the CCRL has no interest in presenting fair, all-inclusive, and unbiased information to the many millions of 'ordinary enthusiasts'?

the fact that CCRL accepts complimentary copies of commercial engines, while at the same time excluding a comparably strong/stronger 'free' alternative engine
(IvanHoe) from their rating lists is irresponsible to the community...

the CCRL (CEGT and IPON as well) promote commercial engines (2 of which have have been severely tainted with allegations of plagiarism) while simultaneously withholding
info that could/should be made available to 'newbies' (and all users) to aid them in their choice of engine, and purchasing decisions?

any group with such influence and power should be held responsible to the community, and expected to deliver inclusive, fair, and unbiased information.
they should absolutely refuse free copies (just like Consumer Reports, etc.), thereby eliminating any and all possibilities of undue influence, abuse, cronyism, graft, etc.

the CCC community should have none of it, and respond simply by boycotting these misguided rating groups.

you're putting it a bit harshly, but in principle, I agree with you

it's a pretty lame excuse if you ask me, but it's all they have left to justify their actions.

IvanHoe is blacklisted, and Rybka/Houdini are actively being tested?
so, according to the CCRL, CEGT, and IPON:
using a 'pseudonym' (if that's even true?) is worse than serious allegations of plagiarism when it come to being included or not!?

[lucasart]

Who do you think we test engines for (besides for our own benefit)? Authors.
Who is the author of IvanHoe?

this ugly statement confirms what i have been saying for a long time...
the CCRL cares only about themselves and program authors?
the CCRL has no interest in presenting fair, all-inclusive, and unbiased information to the many millions of 'ordinary enthusiasts'?

the fact that CCRL accepts complimentary copies of commercial engines, while at the same time excluding a comparably strong/stronger 'free' alternative engine
(IvanHoe) from their rating lists is irresponsible to the community...

the CCRL (CEGT and IPON as well) promote commercial engines (2 of which have have been severely tainted with allegations of plagiarism) while simultaneously withholding
info that could/should be made available to 'newbies' (and all users) to aid them in their choice of engine, and purchasing decisions?

any group with such influence and power should be held responsible to the community, and expected to deliver inclusive, fair, and unbiased information.
they should absolutely refuse free copies (just like Consumer Reports, etc.), thereby eliminating any and all possibilities of undue influence, abuse, cronyism, graft, etc.

the CCC community should have none of it, and respond simply by boycotting these misguided rating groups.

you're putting it a bit harshly, but in principle, I agree with you

it's a pretty lame excuse if you ask me, but it's all they have left to justify their actions.

IvanHoe is blacklisted, and Rybka/Houdini are actively being tested?
so, according to the CCRL, CEGT, and IPON:
using a 'pseudonym' (if that's even true?) is worse than serious allegations of plagiarism when it come to being included or not!?

agreed. it's not a reason but an excuse, and the only one they have left, since the truth was revealed about the Rybka/Ippolit story (and all the clone war that follows).

even if the authors of Ippolit (and Ippolit's derivatives) revealed their names, it wouldn't change anything. They would find another excuse, mark my words!