nTCEC Season 1 Stage 3 - 16 cores of chess fun

[Modern Times]

Thanks, looking forward to the final !!

[Don]

.
Final standings after 14 of 14 rounds:

Code: Select all

N Engine            Pts    SB Ho St Ry Ko Vi Hi Qu Ch 

1 Houdini 3        10.0 56.50    == 01 == =1 1= 11 11 
2 Stockfish 250313 10.0 54.75 ==    0= == =1 11 11 11 
3 Rybka 4.1         9.5 55.50 10 1=    == == == 11 11 
4 Komodo 4534       9.5 54.50 == == ==    01 11 1= 11 
5 Vitruvius 1.19    7.0 38.00 =0 =0 == 10    0= 1= 11 
6 Hiarcs 14         6.0 29.00 0= 00 == 00 1=    == 11 
7 Quazar 0.4        4.0 14.25 00 00 00 0= 0= ==    11 
8 Chiron 1.5        0.0  0.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00    

Finished games: http://www.tcec-chess.net/stage_3.php

Congratulations to Houdini, Stockfish, Rybka and Komodo for qualifying for Stage 4 that will start in a few days.
.

You have put together a very fine tournament Martin! In particular the format is one that leads to much drama and excitement as a program must survive many rounds to come out on the other end! So it's like many tournaments in one.

Some high points are the exceptional performance of Vitruvius, some touch and go for the mighty Houdini in round 2A, the failure of Critter to advance to stage 3 and the problem with Chiron which proved itself a strong competitor. The very high level of play by most all the programs of course is notable too.

It was unexpected to see Critter not get through but it was playing in a tough section. Komodo over-performed considering it was one of the few single core programs and still gets to move on to stage 4. Critter should be there in it's place but such are the fortunes and misfortunes of tournament competition. Other than the Critter anomaly I believe the 4 programs that survive to stage 4 are the ones that deserve to be there.

[jd1]

.
Final standings after 14 of 14 rounds:

Code: Select all

N Engine            Pts    SB Ho St Ry Ko Vi Hi Qu Ch 

1 Houdini 3        10.0 56.50    == 01 == =1 1= 11 11 
2 Stockfish 250313 10.0 54.75 ==    0= == =1 11 11 11 
3 Rybka 4.1         9.5 55.50 10 1=    == == == 11 11 
4 Komodo 4534       9.5 54.50 == == ==    01 11 1= 11 
5 Vitruvius 1.19    7.0 38.00 =0 =0 == 10    0= 1= 11 
6 Hiarcs 14         6.0 29.00 0= 00 == 00 1=    == 11 
7 Quazar 0.4        4.0 14.25 00 00 00 0= 0= ==    11 
8 Chiron 1.5        0.0  0.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00    

Finished games: http://www.tcec-chess.net/stage_3.php

Congratulations to Houdini, Stockfish, Rybka and Komodo for qualifying for Stage 4 that will start in a few days.
.

Thanks! A very fine tournament, can't wait for it to continue

[S.Taylor]

Other than the Critter anomaly I believe the 4 programs that survive to stage 4 are the ones that deserve to be there.

Emotionally, i don't feel that way. Not only emotionally, but it is based on facts.
Because more than 2 years ago, Houdini 1.5a had finally, at long last, become the program that was clearly above Rybka 4.1 in most tests and games. (Rybka 4 an 4.1 was out long before that, and was not upgraded, when expected to be upgraded).
So over 2 years ago, Houdini 1.5a woud have been likely to have come first by a bigger margin than what Houdini 3 did now.
Indeed, at game 28, half way, Houdini was well down the list, and Rybka 4.1 held top place most of time.
So, how far have we got in 2 years?

[lucasart]

It was unexpected to see Critter not get through but it was playing in a tough section. Komodo over-performed considering it was one of the few single core programs and still gets to move on to stage 4. Critter should be there in it's place but such are the fortunes and misfortunes of tournament competition. Other than the Critter anomaly I believe the 4 programs that survive to stage 4 are the ones that deserve to be there.

A shame for Critter. Very nice engine, with incredible tactical abilities. Unfortunately its superior tactics are not very useful at long time control. For example Critter destroys Stockfish when I play games at 10"+0.1" on my machine, but on CCRL 40/40 they are about equal.

But I don't think that's the real explanation. In a tournament with so few games, luck plays an enormous role. It's also what makes the tournaments more fun. Almost any of the finalists could win, given enough luck. If we know that only the strongest can win and we know who the strongest is (Houdini), then it's less fun, and becomes a rating list rather than a tournament.

May the luckiest win

[S.Taylor]

It was unexpected to see Critter not get through but it was playing in a tough section. Komodo over-performed considering it was one of the few single core programs and still gets to move on to stage 4. Critter should be there in it's place but such are the fortunes and misfortunes of tournament competition. Other than the Critter anomaly I believe the 4 programs that survive to stage 4 are the ones that deserve to be there.

A shame for Critter. Very nice engine, with incredible tactical abilities. Unfortunately its superior tactics are not very useful at long time control. For example Critter destroys Stockfish when I play games at 10"+0.1" on my machine, but on CCRL 40/40 they are about equal.

But I don't think that's the real explanation. In a tournament with so few games, luck plays an enormous role. It's also what makes the tournaments more fun. Almost any of the finalists could win, given enough luck. If we know that only the strongest can win and we know who the strongest is (Houdini), then it's less fun, and becomes a rating list rather than a tournament.

May the luckiest win

Yes, indeed. I may go back to my old Ludo instead. Chess is just a slightly more ellaborate form of a die game!

[Don]

It was unexpected to see Critter not get through but it was playing in a tough section. Komodo over-performed considering it was one of the few single core programs and still gets to move on to stage 4. Critter should be there in it's place but such are the fortunes and misfortunes of tournament competition. Other than the Critter anomaly I believe the 4 programs that survive to stage 4 are the ones that deserve to be there.

A shame for Critter. Very nice engine, with incredible tactical abilities. Unfortunately its superior tactics are not very useful at long time control. For example Critter destroys Stockfish when I play games at 10"+0.1" on my machine, but on CCRL 40/40 they are about equal.

But I don't think that's the real explanation. In a tournament with so few games, luck plays an enormous role. It's also what makes the tournaments more fun. Almost any of the finalists could win, given enough luck. If we know that only the strongest can win and we know who the strongest is (Houdini), then it's less fun, and becomes a rating list rather than a tournament.

May the luckiest win

One thing about this tournament is that it will require far less luck than most tournaments. For example a 5 round swiss tournament is all about the draw and can easily come down to 1 games which could just as easily go one or the other.

This tournament which is composed of 8 player double round robins blows that away. And yet having said that, it's still highly subject to the laws of probably and statistics.

An 8 player swiss is composed of 14 games per player. If you run bayeselo on 14 games you will come up with an error margin of around 150 ELO. In rough terms that means there is a non-trivial chance any given program could play 150 ELO stronger or weaker than it should - but it's really even worse since an under-performing program could be playing an over-performing one.

Still, the better program has a significant advantage. It's not really correct to say, "may the luckiest program win" - because if you look at the 32 programs that started this tournament and the 4 that are left, is it that much of a shock who are left?

[Don]

It was unexpected to see Critter not get through but it was playing in a tough section. Komodo over-performed considering it was one of the few single core programs and still gets to move on to stage 4. Critter should be there in it's place but such are the fortunes and misfortunes of tournament competition. Other than the Critter anomaly I believe the 4 programs that survive to stage 4 are the ones that deserve to be there.

A shame for Critter. Very nice engine, with incredible tactical abilities. Unfortunately its superior tactics are not very useful at long time control. For example Critter destroys Stockfish when I play games at 10"+0.1" on my machine, but on CCRL 40/40 they are about equal.

But I don't think that's the real explanation. In a tournament with so few games, luck plays an enormous role. It's also what makes the tournaments more fun. Almost any of the finalists could win, given enough luck. If we know that only the strongest can win and we know who the strongest is (Houdini), then it's less fun, and becomes a rating list rather than a tournament.

May the luckiest win

Yes, indeed. I may go back to my old Ludo instead. Chess is just a slightly more ellaborate form of a die game!

As per my last post:

if you look at the 32 programs that started this tournament and the 4 that are left, is it that much of a shock who are left?


Really, I don't think Rybka, Stockfish, Komodo and Houdini finishing in the top 4 is a major shocker nor does it qualify as being the same as picking 4 of the 32 by rolling a dice.

[S.Taylor]

It was unexpected to see Critter not get through but it was playing in a tough section. Komodo over-performed considering it was one of the few single core programs and still gets to move on to stage 4. Critter should be there in it's place but such are the fortunes and misfortunes of tournament competition. Other than the Critter anomaly I believe the 4 programs that survive to stage 4 are the ones that deserve to be there.

A shame for Critter. Very nice engine, with incredible tactical abilities. Unfortunately its superior tactics are not very useful at long time control. For example Critter destroys Stockfish when I play games at 10"+0.1" on my machine, but on CCRL 40/40 they are about equal.

But I don't think that's the real explanation. In a tournament with so few games, luck plays an enormous role. It's also what makes the tournaments more fun. Almost any of the finalists could win, given enough luck. If we know that only the strongest can win and we know who the strongest is (Houdini), then it's less fun, and becomes a rating list rather than a tournament.

May the luckiest win

Yes, indeed. I may go back to my old Ludo instead. Chess is just a slightly more ellaborate form of a die game!

As per my last post:

if you look at the 32 programs that started this tournament and the 4 that are left, is it that much of a shock who are left?


Really, I don't think Rybka, Stockfish, Komodo and Houdini finishing in the top 4 is a major shocker nor does it qualify as being the same as picking 4 of the 32 by rolling a dice.

I wasn't thinking about your post, i was only thinking about the words "may the luckiest win", independantly. It was not meant to be taken too seriously.
Yes, i appreaciate the results are quite just, if not 100%.

[lucasart]

Still, the better program has a significant advantage. It's not really correct to say, "may the luckiest program win" - because if you look at the 32 programs that started this tournament and the 4 that are left, is it that much of a shock who are left?

Yes, the better programs have a better chance of winning. Of course, a 2700 elo program thrown in there would almost certainly not win. But you cannot deny that there's a huge part of luck.

Critter eliminated and Quazar qualified should make that clear enough. Critter is about 200 elo stronger than Quazar, according to CCRL 40/40. And that result is relatively precise (see error bars and numbers of games).

Luck can perfectly decide that Komodo, Stockfish, Rybka or Vitrivius will win instead of Houdini, which we know is the strongest.