CCRL rating lists updated (25th March 2012)

[Graham Banks]

The latest CCRL Rating Lists and Statistics are available for viewing from the following links:
http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040.live/ (40/40)
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404.live/ (40/4)
http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/404FRC/ (FRC 40/4)

Please note that the three lists are often updated separately to each other.

[Jouni]

What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !!

[jmartus]

or rybka so bad in frc

[pichy]

What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !!

This clearly tell me that critter 1.4 has a better understanding of how to handle positions and it does not depends so much on openings. This makes Critter 1.4 more dangerous than any other top program if one day a match versus one of the 5 top GMs ever take place without the use of openings and tablebase as a bonus or handicap for Critter 1.4

PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock:

[ernest]

PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock:

You write a lot, but also a lot of nonsense...

[pichy]

PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock:

You write a lot, but also a lot of nonsense...

You have to stick to one, not both, are you making sense or writing nonsense

[Uri Blass]

What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !!

This clearly tell me that critter 1.4 has a better understanding of how to handle positions and it does not depends so much on openings. This makes Critter 1.4 more dangerous than any other top program if one day a match versus one of the 5 top GMs ever take place without the use of openings and tablebase as a bonus or handicap for Critter 1.4

PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock:

Houdini1.5 seems to be better than houdini2 only at 40/40 and the lists at 40/4 suggest that houdini2 is better

When we talk about critter1.4 then I disagree with the conclusion.
being relatively better at FRC does not mean having better understanding of chess positions in normal chess and it may be the opposite and some knolwedge that is productive in normal chess is counter productive in FRC when you have different positions that you never get in normal chess.

I suspect that search is more important in FRC relative to normal chess and you get more from doubling the speed in FRC.

[pichy]

What makes Critter 1.4 so good in FRC chess, +120 to Rybka 4.1 !!

This clearly tell me that critter 1.4 has a better understanding of how to handle positions and it does not depends so much on openings. This makes Critter 1.4 more dangerous than any other top program if one day a match versus one of the 5 top GMs ever take place without the use of openings and tablebase as a bonus or handicap for Critter 1.4

PS: Another thing that I noticed is that Houdini 1.5a 64 is much stronger than the latest Houdini:shock:

Houdini1.5 seems to be better than houdini2 only at 40/40 and the lists at 40/4 suggest that houdini2 is better

When we talk about critter1.4 then I disagree with the conclusion.
being relatively better at FRC does not mean having better understanding of chess positions in normal chess and it may be the opposite and some knolwedge that is productive in normal chess is counter productive in FRC when you have different positions that you never get in normal chess.

I suspect that search is more important in FRC relative to normal chess and you get more from doubling the speed in FRC.

That makes a lot of sense, and it is a professional way of explaining and pointing out your point of view

[Engin]

WOW !

22 Tornado 4.88 64-bit 6CPU 3029 +17 −18

breaking the 3000 elo wall