- own books
- learning on
- ponder on
i.e. just about the opposite of normal CCRL testing. It allows each engine to played as the author intended, and if an engine really does benefit more than other engines from own books and learning, then we might see evidence of that. My rule for books was:
- own book
- if no own book, then a book recommended by the author, used to it's full depth. e.g. Zappa here uses Perfect13.ctg
-if neither, then balanced-12.ctg is used. Toga is an example here
The field is:
Code: Select all
Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit * RybkaII.ctg
Naum 3 64-bit * "Tiny" NaumBook.bin
Zappa Mexico II 64-bit * Perfect13.ctg (author recommended book)
Toga II 1.4 beta5c * standard generic book, use Balanced-12.ctg
Spike 1.2 Turin * built-in book
Glaurung 2.0.1 64-bit * Book.bin
Shredder 11 * built-in book
Fritz 11 * Fritz11.ctg
Hiarcs 12 * built-in book
Deep Sjeng 2.7 * sjeng.bok
Junior 10 * Junior 10.ctg
Ktulu 8 * KBook.bin
Chess Tiger 2007.1 * Ct.tbk
----------
1CPU
ponder on
Deep Fritz 10 GUI
each engine 256MB hash
40/4 repeating
learning enabled where supported
chessbase book learning enabled
So far:
- Rybka is still clear number one. Own books from other engines still don't let them get close
- nothing to choose between Shredder 11, Hiarcs 12, Fritz 11 and Zappa Mexico II
- Junior 10, Toga and Naum pretty equal behind that bunch
- Glaurung, Spike and Sjeng pretty evenly matched below them
- Chess Tiger and Ktulu brinign up the rear
With an odd number of engines, it's difficult to get a point in time when all engines have played equal number of games. So far the tournament
rankings are:
Code: Select all
100.0/130 Rybka 2.3.2a x64
78.0/130 Fritz 11
78.0/130 Shredder 11
76.0/131 Hiarcs 12
75.0/130 Zappa Mexico II x64
69.5/130 Naum 3 x64
69.0/130 Toga II 1.4 beta5c
66.0/130 Junior 10
50.5/129 Glaurung 2.0.1 x64
50.0/130 Spike 1.2 Turin
49.0/130 Deep Sjeng 2.7
44.0/130 Chess Tiger 2007.1
40.0/130 Ktulu 8
Rybka vs Shredder 11 9.5 - 0.5
Rybka vs Hiarcs 12 6.5 - 4.5
OK not many games so far, but in an actual tournament like Leiden, Paderborn etc, if an engine is to stand any chance of winning, it must as a minimum be able to have a reasonable chance of a draw against Rybka. So if Shredder's performance here is anything to go by, a win in such a tournament would be very very difficult for it. Hiarcs on the other hand stands a much better chance (in my opinion...)
I have also run the pgn for games to date through ELO stat and I get the following (start value 2,800 for no particular reason):
Code: Select all
Program Elo + - Games Score Av.Op. Draws
1 Rybka 2.3.2a 64-bit : 2992 52 50 130 76.9 % 2783 35.4 %
2 Fritz 11 : 2864 48 47 130 60.0 % 2794 38.5 %
3 Shredder 11 UCI : 2863 49 49 130 60.0 % 2793 35.4 %
4 Zappa Mexico II 64-bit : 2851 46 46 130 57.7 % 2797 41.5 %
5 HIARCS 12 SP : 2851 47 47 131 58.0 % 2794 39.7 %
6 Naum 3 64-bit : 2823 47 47 130 53.5 % 2799 39.2 %
7 Toga II 1.4 beta5c : 2820 47 47 130 53.1 % 2799 38.5 %
8 Junior 10 : 2805 51 51 130 50.8 % 2799 29.2 %
9 Glaurung 2.0.1 64-bit : 2727 50 50 129 39.1 % 2803 33.3 %
10 Spike 1.2 Turin : 2725 47 47 130 38.5 % 2806 40.0 %
11 Deep Sjeng 2.7 : 2719 47 47 130 37.7 % 2806 40.0 %
12 Chess Tiger 2007.1 : 2691 44 45 130 33.8 % 2808 46.2 %
13 Ktulu 8 : 2669 52 53 130 30.8 % 2810 29.2 %
