TalkChess.com

ELO progression measured by year based on CCRL 40/20 games which were played that year. ELO numbers are based on the average rating of the 100 best engines and splitted into a (S)ingle (P)rocessor and (M)ulti (P)rocessor list, follow the orange links to view the details. Furthermore the statistic of the opening lines shows the quality of the randomness.

...

http://rebel13.nl/misc/stats.html

Rebel wrote:ELO progression measured by year based on CCRL 40/20 games which were played that year. ELO numbers are based on the average rating of the 100 best engines and splitted into a (S)ingle (P)rocessor and (M)ulti (P)rocessor list, follow the orange links to view the details. Furthermore the statistic of the opening lines shows the quality of the randomness.

...

http://rebel13.nl/misc/stats.html

very useful. thanks.

were there hardware changes during those years?

Do you have the same thing for the top 1 to 3 engines? I think averaging over 100 engines is going to make the progress look much slower than it was, at least for the stronger programs.

duncan wrote:

Rebel wrote:ELO progression measured by year based on CCRL 40/20 games which were played that year. ELO numbers are based on the average rating of the 100 best engines and splitted into a (S)ingle (P)rocessor and (M)ulti (P)rocessor list, follow the orange links to view the details. Furthermore the statistic of the opening lines shows the quality of the randomness.

...

http://rebel13.nl/misc/stats.html

very useful. thanks.

were there hardware changes during those years?

That's a good question that only can be answered by the CCRL folks. If they provide information I could add an extra column to the table.

mjlef wrote:Do you have the same thing for the top 1 to 3 engines? I think averaging over 100 engines is going to make the progress look much slower than it was, at least for the stronger programs.

I made a start doing so, it's only for the years 2006-2008 currently, it's a lot of work. But interesting enough to finish it. Also the progress for the best engine will be measured.

http://rebel13.nl/misc/stats.html

Rebel wrote:That's a good question that only can be answered by the CCRL folks. If they provide information I could add an extra column to the table.

They adapt the TC to even out HW speed, so what machine each tester is using, becomes irrelevant.

Rebel wrote:ELO progression measured by year based on CCRL 40/20 games which were played that year. ELO numbers are based on the average rating of the 100 best engines and splitted into a (S)ingle (P)rocessor and (M)ulti (P)rocessor list, follow the orange links to view the details. Furthermore the statistic of the opening lines shows the quality of the randomness.

...

http://rebel13.nl/misc/stats.html

the increase for best program for the period

single
2921 - Rybka 2.2 64-bit
3352 - asmFish 051117 64-bit

431 increase

multiple
3002 - Rybka 2.1 64-bit 4CPU
3426 - asmFish 051117 64-bit 4CPU

424 increase


for top 3

single

2921 - Rybka 2.2 64-bit
2779 - Fritz 10
2776 - Hiarcs 11

average 2825


3352 - asmFish 051117 64-bit
3341 - Houdini 6 64-bit
3327 - SugaR XPrO 1.3 64-bit

average 3340

increase 515

multiple

3002 - Rybka 2.1 64-bit 4CPU
2864 - Hiarcs 11 4CPU
2855 - Rybka 1.1 32-bit

average 2907


3426 - asmFish 051117 64-bit 4CPU
3414 - SugaR XPrO 1.2 64-bit 4CPU
3411 - Houdini 6 64-bit 4CPU

average 3417

increase 510

Ozymandias wrote:

Rebel wrote:That's a good question that only can be answered by the CCRL folks. If they provide information I could add an extra column to the table.

They adapt the TC to even out HW speed, so what machine each tester is using, becomes irrelevant.

I see, so basically they are running a 40/40 list based on the hardware of 2006?

"Time control: Equivalent to 40 moves in 40 minutes on Athlon 64 X2 4600+ (2.4 GHz), about 15 minutes on a modern Intel CPU."

Note it's either "40/40" or "40/4", "40/20" would be CEGT.

For earlier years check:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_C ... nd_leaders