I am that bloke on tcec chat that ran these tests.lkaufman wrote: Thanks. Do you know either what version was tested or about how long ago this was done? Also, was it done for any other engine? The 11% value does sound high, but we should really compare it to some other engine. Regarding the centering around a positive value, is this positive for White or positive for the engine? Positive for White would be expected of course, but positive for the engine might suggest that the side to move bonus was too high. I wonder if a high side to move bonus (or stand pat bonus) might cause more draw scores somehow?
The specifics were that the games were taken from CCRL 40/40 where both opponents had a reported elo of over 3000, and the games where the opponents differed by more than 50 elo were then also removed.
This left a total of 30295 games. I only considered the positions at moves 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75. Not all games went as far as move 75 (obviously) and I'm not sure off-hand how many actually got to that point (if its important I can look it up - I know that its still a substantial number due to how long it took to generate the evaluations.)
I generated the evals with both Houdini 4 and Stockfish DD using a fixed depth search (UCI's "go depth x".) Houdini 4 was given a depth of 16 and Stockfish DD was given a depth of 18. Houdini 4 was thusly given a bit more time because of this, but it was within 50% of the total overall SFDD evaluation time for the set of games (IIRC, the SFDD run took ~7 hours and the H4 run took ~10 hours.)
I then filtered all the results to only include evals between -100cp and +100cp for the data I am giving here.
With all that said,
[/img]
Edit: Image links are broken (perhaps just with the service I use?) so here is the raw link:
https://public.bn1301.livefilestore.com ... png?psid=1