Komodo 9.2

[Leto]

I sent 1750 games with two versions of Komodo 9.2 running with 12 cores to CEGT 40/4, one with the default 15 contempt setting, and one with contempt set to 0. After 1000 games the default 15 contempt version scored 68.6% after 1000 games, the contempt 0 version scored 72.1% after 750 games.

The average opposition for the opponents was around 141 elo lower than Komodo 9.1 x64 12CPU. Shouldn't the default version score higher than the contempt 0 version?

my thread with the scores. The CEGT 40/4 rating list should be updated soon:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57353

I checked all the CCRL and CEGT rating lists with various numbers of cores, considering only those lists that had established ratings for k9.0, k9.1, and k9.1. Averaging these six lists, I get that the elo gain from Komodo 9.0 to 9.1 was 20 elo, from 9.1 to 9.2 (using the default value for 9.2 in your test) was again another 20 elo. Since this is somewhat better than what I believe was the elo gain from 9.1 to 9.2 excluding contempt, the evidence on balance is that contempt did help against the range of opponents tested by CCRL and CEGT, but only by a few elo points. Stockfish 6 came out ten elo above K9.0 but ten below 9.1 and thirty below 9.2.

CEGT does not check Komodo 9.2 in its main testing format 40/20

I wonder why. I asked but they did not explain..

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html

They did, they have 1301 games for the 1CPU version. Whoever does the 4CPU testing for that list hasn't tested K92 yet. But at least you can see that K92 1CPU got 22 elo higher than K91 1CPU, so that should give you an idea of what to expect with the 4CPU version.

[Norm Pollock]

I sent 1750 games with two versions of Komodo 9.2 running with 12 cores to CEGT 40/4, one with the default 15 contempt setting, and one with contempt set to 0. After 1000 games the default 15 contempt version scored 68.6% after 1000 games, the contempt 0 version scored 72.1% after 750 games.

The average opposition for the opponents was around 141 elo lower than Komodo 9.1 x64 12CPU. Shouldn't the default version score higher than the contempt 0 version?

my thread with the scores. The CEGT 40/4 rating list should be updated soon:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=57353

I checked all the CCRL and CEGT rating lists with various numbers of cores, considering only those lists that had established ratings for k9.0, k9.1, and k9.1. Averaging these six lists, I get that the elo gain from Komodo 9.0 to 9.1 was 20 elo, from 9.1 to 9.2 (using the default value for 9.2 in your test) was again another 20 elo. Since this is somewhat better than what I believe was the elo gain from 9.1 to 9.2 excluding contempt, the evidence on balance is that contempt did help against the range of opponents tested by CCRL and CEGT, but only by a few elo points. Stockfish 6 came out ten elo above K9.0 but ten below 9.1 and thirty below 9.2.

CEGT does not check Komodo 9.2 in its main testing format 40/20

I wonder why. I asked but they did not explain..

http://www.husvankempen.de/nunn/40_40%2 ... liste.html

They did, they have 1301 games for the 1CPU version. Whoever does the 4CPU testing for that list hasn't tested K92 yet. But at least you can see that K92 1CPU got 22 elo higher than K91 1CPU, so that should give you an idea of what to expect with the 4CPU version.

Right. I meant to say K92 4CPU.

[Werewolf]

Larry - Can I just ask:

I've started a load of new IDeA projects with Komodo 9.2, and I left contempt alone (i.e. set to default 15).

Does this affect its play and evaluation in this mode, or is it just in actual two-player chess that contempt has an impact?

I'm not sure sure I like the concept of my IDeA projects being biased by subjective contempt. Thanks.

IDeA should be using infinite analysis, which does not use contempt, so contempt should not matter, it should use zero. To confirm this, set contempt to some ridiculous value like 400 and see if the opening evals in IDea are normal or silly.

You are correct, it makes no difference.
Thanks.