CEGT - blitz-rating lists July 21th 2012

Discussion of computer chess matches and engine tournaments.

Moderator: Ras

User avatar
Werner
Posts: 2993
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:09 pm
Location: Germany
Full name: Werner Schüle

CEGT - blitz-rating lists July 21th 2012

Post by Werner »

Hi all,
we made an update from our blitz - list:

40 / 4:
New games: 8700
All games now: 1.054.392

New Engines
1 Houdini 2.0c x64 4CPU: 3151 - 400 games (good start with +35 to v. 1.5)
26 Komodo 5.0 x64 1CPU: 2987 - 1100 games (+30 to v. 4.0 - nr. 4 in our best single list)
97 Equinox 1.40 x64 1CPU: 2847 - 1200 games (+14 to v. 1.35)
521 Pro Deo 1.8: 2529 - 1400 games (+63 to v. 1.72)
798 ExChess 6.30b w32: 2392 - 400 games (starts with around +300 to older version 5.01)
700 Glass 1.9 x64: 2440 - 1200 games (+8 to v. 1.8)
945 ICE 0.3 v2750: 2298 - 1000 games (no further version here)

Updates
202 Deep Junior 13.3 x64 1CPU: 2752 - 1600 games (+2)
275 Deep Junior 13.3 w32 1CPU: 2698 - 1400 games (-24; now close to v. 12.5)

more updates follow tomorrow!

A big „Thank you“ to all testers as usual!!

Links

40/20: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating.htm
Blitz: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/blitz.htm
40/120: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating120.htm
Tester: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/testers/testers.htm
40/20 pb=on: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/rating4020PBON.htm
Games of the week: http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... on/gow.jpg

Werner Schuele
CEGT-Team
lkaufman
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Full name: Larry Kaufman

Re: CEGT - blitz-rating lists July 21th 2012

Post by lkaufman »

Although the rating gain of 30 seems about right (we currently show 32), the actual rating is surprisingly low relative to some other engines, especially Critter 1.6. What percentage of these games are played with SSE4? That is a big deal with Komodo 5.
ThatsIt
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:11 pm

Re: CEGT - blitz-rating lists July 21th 2012

Post by ThatsIt »

lkaufman wrote:Although the rating gain of 30 seems about right (we currently show 32), the actual rating is surprisingly low relative to some other engines, especially Critter 1.6. What percentage of these games are played with SSE4? That is a big deal with Komodo 5.
Hi !

All (100%) games were played with SSE4.

Best wishes,
G.S.
(CEGT member)
lkaufman
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Full name: Larry Kaufman

Re: CEGT - blitz-rating lists July 21th 2012

Post by lkaufman »

ThatsIt wrote:
lkaufman wrote:Although the rating gain of 30 seems about right (we currently show 32), the actual rating is surprisingly low relative to some other engines, especially Critter 1.6. What percentage of these games are played with SSE4? That is a big deal with Komodo 5.
Hi !

All (100%) games were played with SSE4.

Best wishes,
G.S.
(CEGT member)
Thanks. Were there any losses on time? There shouldn't be, but I just want to be sure. Also, what is the normal number of book moves (in plies) used? We're looking into whether this is a factor in explaining different results by different testers.
Wolfgang
Posts: 989
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 1:08 am

Re: CEGT - blitz-rating lists July 21th 2012

Post by Wolfgang »

no time losses detected... :-)

concerning book moves: I do not use books, but testsuites (e.g. Silver Suite), length is from 3 to 15 full moves. shortest one is from silver suite (1.c4 e5 2.Sc3 Sf6 3.Sf3 Sc6), longest is from Gerhard Sonnabends suite, a line from Slav Defence, D17. I think that "normal" length is around 8 full moves, 16 plies.
Best
Wolfgang
CEGT-Team
www.cegt.net
www.cegt.forumieren.com
lkaufman
Posts: 6258
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:15 am
Location: Maryland USA
Full name: Larry Kaufman

Re: CEGT - blitz-rating lists July 21th 2012

Post by lkaufman »

Thank you. Do you or any of your fellow testers ever use (or even know about) any testsuite that contains at least 5,000 positions? We have our own, but it only goes out 5 moves, so it would be interesting for us to compare our own test results with what we would get using some other large testsuite that had enough positions.