Stockfish 2.2.2 is strong, but...

[Jouni]

... Critter 1.4 is too strong opponent:

Code: Select all

                              
1   Critter 1.4 64-bit   +83  +44/=60/-16 61.67%   74.0/120
2   Stockfish 2.2.2 JA   -83  +16/=60/-44 38.33%   46.0/120

2 short game examples

[Event "Noomen2012"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2012.01.31"]
[Round "38"]
[White "Critter 1.4 64-bit"]
[Black "Stockfish 2.2.2 JA"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D56"]
[Annotator "0.22;0.64"]
[PlyCount "53"]
[TimeControl "60/120:0/0:0/0"]

{Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E5300 @ 2.60GHz 2599 MHz W=16.2 plies; 2
501kN/s B=17.8 plies; 1 895kN/s} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5.
Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 O-O 7. e3 Ne4 8. Bxe7 Qxe7 9. Rc1 c6 10. Qc2 Nd7 {Both last book
move} 11. Be2 {0.22/16 4} Ng5 {0.64/17 3 (Nxc3)} 12. Nxg5 {0.39/16 4} Qxg5 {0.
68/16 3} 13. O-O {0.36/17 3} Nf6 {0.72/19 4 (Qe7)} 14. f4 {0.47/17 3 (g3)} Qh4
{0.60/17 2} 15. e4 {0.52/17 3 (Nd1)} Rd8 {0.64/19 3} 16. e5 {0.50/17 3 (g3)}
Ng4 {0.48/19 2} 17. Bxg4 {0.50/16 0} Qxg4 {0.48/12 0} 18. h3 {0.56/18 3} Qh5 {
0.44/18 4 (Qh4)} 19. cxd5 {0.67/16 3} exd5 {0.64/19 4} 20. f5 {0.67/15 0} Bd7 {
0.64/19 8 (Qh4)} 21. Rf3 {0.78/16 3 (Qf2)} Rf8 {0.72/17 3 (Qh4)} 22. Rcf1 {0.
90/15 2 (Ne2)} Qh4 {1.09/17 3} 23. Ne2 {1.11/15 3} Rae8 {1.41/17 3 (Qe4)} 24.
Rg3 {2.11/15 3} Kh8 {2.70/17 2 (a6)} 25. Rf4 {3.44/14 1} Qh5 {4.92/20 3 (Qd8)}
26. Rxg7 {4.26/14 1} Kxg7 {5.29/21 2} 27. Ng3 {4.94/17 3} 1-0

[Event "Nunn"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2012.01.31"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Critter 1.4 64-bit"]
[Black "Stockfish 2.2.2 JA"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D85"]
[Annotator "0.25;0.64"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[TimeControl "60/120:0/0:0/0"]

{Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E5300 @ 2.60GHz 2599 MHz W=14.6 plies; 2
295kN/s B=15.8 plies; 1 812kN/s} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5.
e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Nf3 c5 8. Rb1 O-O 9. Be2 cxd4 10. cxd4 {Both last book
move} Qa5+ {0.64/14 1} 11. Bd2 {0.25/15 2 (Qd2)} Qxa2 {0.56/16 1} 12. O-O {0.
24/16 2} Nc6 {0.48/16 1} 13. d5 {0.24/16 2} Ne5 {0.52/17 4} 14. Nxe5 {0.27/15 2
} Bxe5 {0.52/12 0} 15. Bb4 {0.43/15 3 (Bg5)} Bf6 {0.64/16 2} 16. f4 {0.51/15 2}
Rd8 {0.56/18 2} 17. Rf2 {0.82/14 2} Bd4 {0.72/18 1} 18. Qxd4 {1.11/14 2} Qxb1+
{0.72/12 0} 19. Rf1 {1.11/13 0} Qc2 {1.34/18 4} 20. Bc4 {1.13/15 1} a5 {1.53/
17 4 (e5)} 21. Bc3 {2.01/12 2 (Bxe7)} f6 {1.85/16 1} 22. d6+ {2.01/11 0 (e5)}
Kg7 {4.04/14 1} 23. e5 {2.73/14 1} Qf5 {4.52/16 1 (e6)} 24. Qb6 {3.57/13 1}
Rxd6 {5.09/16 1 (Bd7)} 25. exd6 {3.85/13 0} Be6 {5.33/17 1} 26. Bb5 {4.10/15 1}
1-0

Jouni

[lkaufman]

Critter, Houdini, and Ivanhoe are all super-strong at very fast time limits compared to "normal" programs like Stockfish (and Komodo). If you rerun this match with say five times as much time for each side I'll bet you will find that these two are quite closely matched.

[beram]

Critter, Houdini, and Ivanhoe are all super-strong at very fast time limits compared to "normal" programs like Stockfish (and Komodo). If you rerun this match with say five times as much time for each side I'll bet you will find that these two are quite closely matched.

The preliminary result of Stockfish against Ivanhoe in Pal Larkins LTC match (see below) doesn't fit in your theory:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 24&t=42138

But I guess that(as always) you will have an explanation for this.

[lkaufman]

Critter, Houdini, and Ivanhoe are all super-strong at very fast time limits compared to "normal" programs like Stockfish (and Komodo). If you rerun this match with say five times as much time for each side I'll bet you will find that these two are quite closely matched.

The preliminary result of Stockfish against Ivanhoe in Pal Larkins LTC match (see below) doesn't fit in your theory:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 24&t=42138

But I guess that(as always) you will have an explanation for this.

Why do you say it doesn't fit my theory? The result shows them only a single game apart! You don't get more closely matched than this.

[beram]

Critter, Houdini, and Ivanhoe are all super-strong at very fast time limits compared to "normal" programs like Stockfish (and Komodo). If you rerun this match with say five times as much time for each side I'll bet you will find that these two are quite closely matched.

The preliminary result of Stockfish against Ivanhoe in Pal Larkins LTC match (see below) doesn't fit in your theory:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 24&t=42138

But I guess that(as always) you will have an explanation for this.

Why do you say it doesn't fit my theory? The result shows them only a single game apart! You don't get more closely matched than this.

Because at very short time control they are also even
http://immortalchess.net/forum/showthread.php?p=218212

[lkaufman]

Critter, Houdini, and Ivanhoe are all super-strong at very fast time limits compared to "normal" programs like Stockfish (and Komodo). If you rerun this match with say five times as much time for each side I'll bet you will find that these two are quite closely matched.

The preliminary result of Stockfish against Ivanhoe in Pal Larkins LTC match (see below) doesn't fit in your theory:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 24&t=42138

But I guess that(as always) you will have an explanation for this.

Why do you say it doesn't fit my theory? The result shows them only a single game apart! You don't get more closely matched than this.

Because at very short time control they are also even
http://immortalchess.net/forum/showthread.php?p=218212

I see. I'll have to investigate further, but this is very contrary to our own testing, which shows SF hopelessly outclassed by Ivanhoe or Critter at super-fast levels but not at normal levels.