If not for that, I would have also pulled both FireFly 2.5.13 x64 as well as Capivara LK 0.08b03 64-bit. Whew- I have to stop and rest twice trying to type that name. But I left them both in.
Capivara shows nothing- no kns, no depth, no thinking lines, no ideas of "plus" or "minus" in the score. And if that isn't bad enough- he causes his opponent to show little or nothing in the PGNs as well- tho he does during the game. I have no patience with engines like this- and still want to cut him loose.
As for FireFly 2.5.13 x64- I am still about a half step from telling him good-bye as well. A straight UCI engine with only an exe given, and I set the hash on 128MB- it shows 295,000 k in memory. I cut it in half to 64MB, and it goes higher and shows 315,000k in memory. Sometimes an engine may not show all the memory- but he IS using at least what you see for something. I have less patience for a UCI engine that ought to know better.
(And if moved to 64MB, it may drop from 295 to maybe 275- or maybe go higher as I said.) For anyone not aware, a chessbase gui will obey NO COMMANDS from an engine folder of a strictly UCI engine. Only commands within the gui itself.
At any rate, we have gotten in a few rounds:
Intel i5 w/4TCs
Fritz 11 gui/Fritz 13 gui
1CPU/32-bit or 64-bit where available
128MB hash
Bases=NONE [No egtb & no egbb]
Ponder_Learning=OFF
Perfect 2012b.ctg w/12-move limit
40/21 Repeating (Benched to adapt to CCRL 40/40)
RR with 2 cycles
Group 12
-----------
Round 1
----------
Myrddin 0.85 64-bit v Shallow 1.0 64-bit (draw)
ChessKISS 1.7 64-bit v Buzz 0.08 (1-0)
ChessAlex 2.0r4 v OBender 3.2.4.2 (0-1)
Uralochka 1.1b v Alf 1.09 (1-0)
Adam 3.3 v Sinobyl 1.50 (1-0)
ZCT 0.3.2451 v Capivara LK 0.08b03 64-bit (0-1)
FireFly 2.5.13 x64 v BlackBishop 1.0 (0-1)
Round 2
----------
Shallow 1.0 64-bit v BlackBishop 1.0 (0-1)
Capivara LK 0.08b03 64-bit v FireFly 2.5.13 x64 (draw)
Sinobyl 1.50 v ZCT 0.3.2451 (1-0)
Alf 1.09 v Adam 3.3 (1-0)
OBender 3.2.4.2 v Uralochka 1.1b (draw)
Buzz 0.08 v ChessAlex 2.0r4 (0-1)
Myrddin 0.85 64-bit v ChessKISS 1.7 64-bit (0-1)
Round 3
----------
ChessKISS 1.7 64-bit v Shallow 1.0 64-bit (1-0)
ChessAlex 2.0r4 v Myrddin 0.85 64-bit (0-1)
Uralochka 1.1b v Buzz 0.08 (1-0)
Adam 3.3 v OBender 3.2.4.2 (1-0)
ZCT 0.3.2451 v Alf 1.09 (1-0)
FireFly 2.5.13 x64 v Sinobyl 1.50 (1-0)
BlackBishop 1.0 v Capivara LK 0.08b03 64-bit (1-0)
Code: Select all
Standings after Round 3
------------------------
1.ChessKISS 1.7 64-bit 3.0
2.BlackBishop 1.0 3.0
3.Uralochka 1.1b 2.5
4.Adam 3.3 2.0
5.FireFly 2.5.13 x64 1.5
6.Capivara LK 0.08b03 64-bit 1.5
7.OBender 3.2.4.2 1.5
8.Myrddin 0.85 64-bit 1.5
9.Sinobyl 1.50 1.0
10.ZCT 0.3.2451 1.0
11.ChessAlex 2.0r4 1.0
12.Alf 1.09 1.0
13.Shallow 1.0 64-bit 0.5
14.Buzz 0.08 0.0Again- my question:
I need help, and I will mention it in more than one of these threads in case any programmers watching happen to miss the ones w/o their engine.
The idea was to let group 14 at the bottom have a match between the top 2 finishers. And the same for group 1. And have a champion from those 2 groups.
I was then with the remaining 12 groups let top finisher in group 2 play top finisher in group 3 and then top finisher in group 4 play top finisher in group 5, etc. Then we would end up with 8 freeware champions.
I have been tossing around the idea in my mind to instead let the top 2 finishers in EACH GROUP FACE-OFF for the group championship. It would leave 14 champions instead of 8- but no doubt it would be much more competitive. Is 14 champions too many? Or does it sound better. As champion of group 4 could be over 100 elo stronger than champion of group 5. I will go with what the majority thinks- if only one person responds, I will do it his way.
Hold on- 1 more Group to post!
george