Sargon 1978 UCI Available

[Chessqueen]

It was NOT that easy to beat Sargon at depth 7 but slowly I got the best of Sargon Depth7. I wonder in how many moves can other players beat Sargon at depth7


[Event "Computer chess game"] [Site "DESKTOP-OFQ3C0P"] [Date "2021.01.29"] [Round "?"] [White "Sargon Depth7"] [Black "ChessQueen"] [Result "0-1"] [BlackElo "1900"] [ECO "A27"] [Opening "English"] [Time "09:28:25"] [Variation "Three Knights, 3...d6"] [WhiteElo "1480"] [TimeControl "7200+5"] [Termination "normal"] [PlyCount "156"] [WhiteType "program"] [BlackType "human"] 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 Nxd4 6. Qxd4 Nf6 7. Be3 Be7 8. O-O-O O-O 9. f3 Bf5 10. g4 Bg6 11. Bg2 h6 12. h4 c5 13. Qf4 Nd7 14. Nb5 Qa5 15. a3 Bf6 16. Qxd6 Qa4 17. Qd2 Rfe8 18. Bxh6 Qxc4+ 19. Nc3 gxh6 20. e4 Bxc3 21. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 22. bxc3 Ne5 23. Kc2 Nc4 24. Rhe1 b5 25. Kb3 Rad8 26. a4 a6 27. axb5 Rxd1 28. Rxd1 Ne3 29. Rd2 axb5 30. h5 Bh7 31. Ra2 Kg7 32. Bh3 Bg8 33. Ra7 Nc4 34. Kc2 Rd8 35. Rc7 Ra8 36. Rxc5 Ra2+ 37. Kc1 Rh2 38. Bf1 Rh1 39. Kd1 Rxf1+ 40. Ke2 Rb1 41. Kf2 Rb3 42. g5 Bh7 43. gxh6+ Kxh6 44. Ke2 Rb2+ 45. Kd1 Bg8 46. Kc1 Rh2 47. Rc6+ Kg7 48. Rc5 f6 49. Rc7+ Kh6 50. Rc6 Kg7 51. Rc5 Be6 52. f4 Bf7 53. Rc7 Rxh5 54. Kc2 Rh2+ 55. Kb1 Re2 56. e5 Kg6 57. f5+ Kxf5 58. Rxf7 Re1+ 59. Kc2 Re2+ 60. Kd1 Rxe5 61. Rd7 Ke6 62. Rd4 f5 63. Rd8 Ke7 64. Rh8 f4 65. Kc2 Re2+ 66. Kd3 f3 67. Rh5 Rd2+ 68. Ke4 f2 69. Rh7+ Kf6 70. Rh6+ Kg7 71. Rh1 Re2+ 72. Kd3 Re3+ 73. Kc2 Re1 74. Rh5 f1=Q 75. Rg5+ Kh6 76. Rxb5 Qe2+ 77. Kb3 Rb1+ 78. Ka4 {White resigns} Qa2# 0-1

[Chessqueen]

Hi !

I've started a test for our 40/4 + ... ratinglist.

https://cegt.forumieren.com/t1308-testi ... 8-1-00-uci

Best wishes,
G.S.
(CEGT team)

Please run the same match with Sargon at depth 6 and include Cicada 0.1 64 bit

[Chessqueen]

Hi !

I've started a test for our 40/4 + ... ratinglist.

https://cegt.forumieren.com/t1308-testi ... 8-1-00-uci

Best wishes,
G.S.
(CEGT team)

Please run the same match with Sargon at depth 6 and include Cicada 0.1 64 bit

I played a match of 10 games Sargon V.01Beta at Depth6 Versus a newer version of Mizar_21 and after 10 games the final score was 5 Wins 3 Losts and 2 Draws in favor of Sargon Depth at Depth 6

[Event "Computer chess game"] [Site "DESKTOP-OFQ3C0P"] [Date "2021.02.03"] [Round "10"] [White "Mizar_21"] [Black "Sargon-1978-V1.01Beta"] [Result "0-1"] [BlackElo "1460"] [ECO "C90"] [Opening "Spanish"] [Time "12:20:18"] [Variation "Closed, 8...d6"] [WhiteElo "1410"] [TimeControl "1260+5"] [Termination "time forfeit"] [PlyCount "86"] [WhiteType "program"] [BlackType "program"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. Ng5 Bd7 10. d4 h6 11. Bxf7+ Rxf7 12. Nxf7 Kxf7 13. dxe5 dxe5 14. f4 Bg4 15. Qxd8 Rxd8 16. b4 Nxb4 17. cxb4 Bxb4 18. Bd2 Bxd2 19. Nxd2 Rxd2 20. fxe5 Nd7 21. Rec1 c5 22. a4 b4 23. Rf1+ Ke6 24. h3 Bh5 25. Rac1 Bg6 26. Rce1 Nxe5 27. Rf8 Ra2 28. Rb8 Nd3 29. Re3 Nf4 30. e5 Rxg2+ 31. Kh1 Nd5 32. Re1 Rg5 33. Ra8 Nc7 34. Rb8 Be8 35. Rb6+ Ke7 36. a5 Bd7 37. e6 Bc8 38. Re4 Nd5 39. Rb8 Bxe6 40. Ra8 Rg6 41. Rxa6 Kd7 42. Kh2 Nc7 43. Rb6 Nd5 44. ... {White forfeits on time} 0-1

[Bill Forster]

Hi !

I've started a test for our 40/4 + ... ratinglist.

https://cegt.forumieren.com/t1308-testi ... 8-1-00-uci

Best wishes,
G.S.
(CEGT team)

The link above reminded me that I need to finish off my Sargon V1.01 project. I devoted the day to it and got it done. The engine itself is unchanged from the beta, except that it's name is now "Sargon 1978 V1.01" not "Sargon 1978 V1.01 beta". Sorry not very overwhelming I know. The latest version of the engine can be downloaded from Github here: https://github.com/billforsternz/retro- ... engine.exe.

It will be interesting to see if the various engine testers pick up the new release and measure a significant Elo change compared to V1.00.

I have updated the documentation to reflect V1.01. If you've been following along you will know that V1.01 is basically an attempt to work-around Sargon 1978's tendency to repeat positions and concede repetition draws far too easily, and also to finish off opponents and deliver mate once it has calculated a mating PV. (Also, less importantly, if the GUI provides a depth parameter to the go command it now goes straight to that target depth rather than iterating its way there, saving significant time).

Getting this release out was a whole day's work mainly because I updated sargon-tests.exe available here: https://github.com/billforsternz/retro- ... -tests.exe to include some timing tests. On the principle that 'the code should be the documentation' the program explains itself;

Code: Select all

C:\Users\Bill\Documents\Github\sargon\Release>sargon-tests t -1 -v
On the Talkchess computer chess forum, user mwyoung revealed some Sargon
timing information from the (paper) manual that came with an early Z80
version of Sargon:
Ref: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74027&start=40#p866311

Hardware needed: one TRS-80 level II with 32k of memory minimum.
Level 1: 20 secs (per move)
Level 2: 60 secs, 3 x slower vs level 1
Level 3: 120 secs, 2 x slower vs level 2
Level 4: 360 secs, 3 x slower vs level 3
Level 5: 2400 secs, 5 x slower vs level 4
Level 6: 14400 secs, 6 x slower vs level 5

The following measurements on a variety of positions (the positions used for
position tests are reused) serve to provide a comparison to these move times.

Level 1: ............ 1200 tests
         Avg=0.002 secs, 11445 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 2: ............  120 tests
         Avg=0.009 secs, 4.9 x slower vs level 1, 6943 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 3: ............   12 tests
         Avg=0.117 secs, 13.5 x slower vs level 2, 1027 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 4: ............   12 tests
         Avg=0.352 secs, 3.0 x slower vs level 3, 1022 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 5: ............   12 tests
         Avg=5.005 secs, 14.2 x slower vs level 4, 479 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 6: ............   12 tests
         Avg=13.131 secs, 2.6 x slower vs level 5, 1097 x faster vs TRS-80

The Sargon benchmark (=level 6, 12 tests TRS-80 speedup factor) is 1097.

An important caveat to the TRS-80 comparison above is that this is definitely
not an apples to apples comparison. How do we know this? The TRS-80 manual
entry above also provides an 'instantaneous' time for level 0. But the Sargon
1978 source code, and our translation of it to Intel x86 constrains the level
to the range 1-6 inclusive. Level 0 is definitely not allowed! Refer to the
paragraph of assembly language starting with label IN08:

Since we are not simply comparing the same software running on different
platforms, the comparisons are perhaps moot. With tongue in cheek I have used
the measurements to define a 'Sargon' benchmark above which is a measurement
of a computer's single core performance. The modest circa 2010 Acer Aspire
5741G laptop this software was developed has a benchmark score of ~1140.
In light of these considerations, the best estimate of how much faster Sargon
1978 runs on a modern PC versus the original Z80 code on Z80 hardware was
probably provided by user Tibono on the talkchess forums:
Ref: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74027&start=10#p845624

Tibono went above and beyond the call of duty, comparing the x86 UCI engine
to original Z80 code running on a Z80 emulator with known timing. He not
only verified identical moves were calculated, he hand timed and tabulated
the moves. He provided two averages, a speedup ratio of 6917 at level 2 and
6125 at level 3. He also used a modest old laptop, he reports it has a CPU &
RAM win perf index of 5.8. Sadly a comparable score for my laptop under
Windows 10 doesn't seem to be available. My laptop has Windows System
Assessment Tool (WinSAT) scores of 8.2 (both CPU and RAM).

In summary we have considered two independent speedup ratios, on two different
modest laptops. One is approx 1000, one is approx 6000. We consider the latter
to be a more reliable and better indicator.

All tests passed. Elapsed time = 226.410 seconds

C:\Users\Bill\Documents\Github\sargon\Release>

To summarise, it basically attempts to answer the question; "How much faster is Sargon 1978 x86 than Sargon 1978 Z80 running on a Z80?" Larry Kaufman was asking this question (way) up thread, so it seemed worthwhile to gather, re-measure and summarise all available information. The best answer seems to be about 6000 times faster (thanks to user Tibono who performed the measurement). I have defined a "Sargon" benchmark to measure how fast your computer runs Sargon. My circa 2010 Acer 5741G (a very modest machine indeed) has a Sargon benchmark of about 1100 (run the sargon-tests.exe on your machine if you are interested in your Sargon benchmark). The Sargon benchmark number is also a speedup ratio (like Tibono's 6000) measured slightly differently. Perhaps actual speedup is Sargon benchmark multiplied by 6 approximately.

[AdminX]

Thanks Bill,

Here is what is reported on a old i7-4790 w/ 32GB Ram

Code: Select all

D:\Users\tedsu\Downloads>sargon-tests t -1 -v
On the Talkchess computer chess forum, user mwyoung revealed some Sargon
timing information from the (paper) manual that came with an early Z80
version of Sargon:
Ref: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74027&start=40#p866311

Hardware needed: one TRS-80 level II with 32k of memory minimum.
Level 1: 20 secs (per move)
Level 2: 60 secs, 3 x slower vs level 1
Level 3: 120 secs, 2 x slower vs level 2
Level 4: 360 secs, 3 x slower vs level 3
Level 5: 2400 secs, 5 x slower vs level 4
Level 6: 14400 secs, 6 x slower vs level 5

The following measurements on a variety of positions (the positions used for
position tests are reused) serve to provide a comparison to these move times.

Level 1: ............ 1200 tests
         Avg=0.001 secs, 22749 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 2: ............  120 tests
         Avg=0.005 secs, 5.2 x slower vs level 1, 13115 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 3: ............   12 tests
         Avg=0.057 secs, 12.6 x slower vs level 2, 2090 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 4: ............   12 tests
         Avg=0.175 secs, 3.0 x slower vs level 3, 2058 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 5: ............   12 tests
         Avg=2.260 secs, 12.9 x slower vs level 4, 1062 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 6: ............   12 tests
         Avg=6.231 secs, 2.8 x slower vs level 5, 2311 x faster vs TRS-80

The Sargon benchmark (=level 6, 12 tests TRS-80 speedup factor) is 2311.

An important caveat to the TRS-80 comparison above is that this is definitely
not an apples to apples comparison. How do we know this? The TRS-80 manual
entry above also provides an 'instantaneous' time for level 0. But the Sargon
1978 source code, and our translation of it to Intel x86 constrains the level
to the range 1-6 inclusive. Level 0 is definitely not allowed! Refer to the
paragraph of assembly language starting with label IN08:

Since we are not simply comparing the same software running on different
platforms, the comparisons are perhaps moot. With tongue in cheek I have used
the measurements to define a 'Sargon' benchmark above which is a measurement
of a computer's single core performance. The modest circa 2010 Acer Aspire
5741G laptop this software was developed has a benchmark score of ~1140.
In light of these considerations, the best estimate of how much faster Sargon
1978 runs on a modern PC versus the original Z80 code on Z80 hardware was
probably provided by user Tibono on the talkchess forums:
Ref: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74027&start=10#p845624

Tibono went above and beyond the call of duty, comparing the x86 UCI engine
to original Z80 code running on a Z80 emulator with known timing. He not
only verified identical moves were calculated, he hand timed and tabulated
the moves. He provided two averages, a speedup ratio of 6917 at level 2 and
6125 at level 3. He also used a modest old laptop, he reports it has a CPU &
RAM win perf index of 5.8. Sadly a comparable score for my laptop under
Windows 10 doesn't seem to be available. My laptop has Windows System
Assessment Tool (WinSAT) scores of 8.2 (both CPU and RAM).

In summary we have considered two independent speedup ratios, on two different
modest laptops. One is approx 1000, one is approx 6000. We consider the latter
to be a more reliable and better indicator.

All tests passed. Elapsed time = 106.297 seconds

[Essay]

Hi Bill,

Many thanks, great work and excellent documentation!

On my Intel Core i7-10700 CPU @2.90GHz - 16GB ram I got these results:

Sargon 1978 move calculation time measurements.

Level 1: ............ 1200 tests
Avg=0.001 secs, 28812 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 2: ............ 120 tests
Avg=0.004 secs, 5.1 x slower vs level 1, 17102 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 3: ............ 12 tests
Avg=0.047 secs, 13.3 x slower vs level 2, 2562 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 4: ............ 12 tests
Avg=0.143 secs, 3.1 x slower vs level 3, 2509 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 5: ............ 12 tests
Avg=1.850 secs, 12.9 x slower vs level 4, 1297 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 6: ............ 12 tests
Avg=5.077 secs, 2.7 x slower vs level 5, 2836 x faster vs TRS-80

The Sargon benchmark (=level 6, 12 tests TRS-80 speedup factor) is 2836.

All tests passed. Elapsed time = 86.664 seconds

[Chessqueen]

Hi !

I've started a test for our 40/4 + ... ratinglist.

https://cegt.forumieren.com/t1308-testi ... 8-1-00-uci

Best wishes,
G.S.
(CEGT team)

The link above reminded me that I need to finish off my Sargon V1.01 project. I devoted the day to it and got it done. The engine itself is unchanged from the beta, except that it's name is now "Sargon 1978 V1.01" not "Sargon 1978 V1.01 beta". Sorry not very overwhelming I know. The latest version of the engine can be downloaded from Github here: https://github.com/billforsternz/retro- ... engine.exe.

It will be interesting to see if the various engine testers pick up the new release and measure a significant Elo change compared to V1.00.

I have updated the documentation to reflect V1.01. If you've been following along you will know that V1.01 is basically an attempt to work-around Sargon 1978's tendency to repeat positions and concede repetition draws far too easily, and also to finish off opponents and deliver mate once it has calculated a mating PV. (Also, less importantly, if the GUI provides a depth parameter to the go command it now goes straight to that target depth rather than iterating its way there, saving significant time).

Getting this release out was a whole day's work mainly because I updated sargon-tests.exe available here: https://github.com/billforsternz/retro- ... -tests.exe to include some timing tests. On the principle that 'the code should be the documentation' the program explains itself;

Code: Select all

C:\Users\Bill\Documents\Github\sargon\Release>sargon-tests t -1 -v
On the Talkchess computer chess forum, user mwyoung revealed some Sargon
timing information from the (paper) manual that came with an early Z80
version of Sargon:
Ref: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74027&start=40#p866311

Hardware needed: one TRS-80 level II with 32k of memory minimum.
Level 1: 20 secs (per move)
Level 2: 60 secs, 3 x slower vs level 1
Level 3: 120 secs, 2 x slower vs level 2
Level 4: 360 secs, 3 x slower vs level 3
Level 5: 2400 secs, 5 x slower vs level 4
Level 6: 14400 secs, 6 x slower vs level 5

The following measurements on a variety of positions (the positions used for
position tests are reused) serve to provide a comparison to these move times.

Level 1: ............ 1200 tests
         Avg=0.002 secs, 11445 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 2: ............  120 tests
         Avg=0.009 secs, 4.9 x slower vs level 1, 6943 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 3: ............   12 tests
         Avg=0.117 secs, 13.5 x slower vs level 2, 1027 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 4: ............   12 tests
         Avg=0.352 secs, 3.0 x slower vs level 3, 1022 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 5: ............   12 tests
         Avg=5.005 secs, 14.2 x slower vs level 4, 479 x faster vs TRS-80
Level 6: ............   12 tests
         Avg=13.131 secs, 2.6 x slower vs level 5, 1097 x faster vs TRS-80

The Sargon benchmark (=level 6, 12 tests TRS-80 speedup factor) is 1097.

An important caveat to the TRS-80 comparison above is that this is definitely
not an apples to apples comparison. How do we know this? The TRS-80 manual
entry above also provides an 'instantaneous' time for level 0. But the Sargon
1978 source code, and our translation of it to Intel x86 constrains the level
to the range 1-6 inclusive. Level 0 is definitely not allowed! Refer to the
paragraph of assembly language starting with label IN08:

Since we are not simply comparing the same software running on different
platforms, the comparisons are perhaps moot. With tongue in cheek I have used
the measurements to define a 'Sargon' benchmark above which is a measurement
of a computer's single core performance. The modest circa 2010 Acer Aspire
5741G laptop this software was developed has a benchmark score of ~1140.
In light of these considerations, the best estimate of how much faster Sargon
1978 runs on a modern PC versus the original Z80 code on Z80 hardware was
probably provided by user Tibono on the talkchess forums:
Ref: http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74027&start=10#p845624

Tibono went above and beyond the call of duty, comparing the x86 UCI engine
to original Z80 code running on a Z80 emulator with known timing. He not
only verified identical moves were calculated, he hand timed and tabulated
the moves. He provided two averages, a speedup ratio of 6917 at level 2 and
6125 at level 3. He also used a modest old laptop, he reports it has a CPU &
RAM win perf index of 5.8. Sadly a comparable score for my laptop under
Windows 10 doesn't seem to be available. My laptop has Windows System
Assessment Tool (WinSAT) scores of 8.2 (both CPU and RAM).

In summary we have considered two independent speedup ratios, on two different
modest laptops. One is approx 1000, one is approx 6000. We consider the latter
to be a more reliable and better indicator.

All tests passed. Elapsed time = 226.410 seconds

C:\Users\Bill\Documents\Github\sargon\Release>

To summarise, it basically attempts to answer the question; "How much faster is Sargon 1978 x86 than Sargon 1978 Z80 running on a Z80?" Larry Kaufman was asking this question (way) up thread, so it seemed worthwhile to gather, re-measure and summarise all available information. The best answer seems to be about 6000 times faster (thanks to user Tibono who performed the measurement). I have defined a "Sargon" benchmark to measure how fast your computer runs Sargon. My circa 2010 Acer 5741G (a very modest machine indeed) has a Sargon benchmark of about 1100 (run the sargon-tests.exe on your machine if you are interested in your Sargon benchmark). The Sargon benchmark number is also a speedup ratio (like Tibono's 6000) measured slightly differently. Perhaps actual speedup is Sargon benchmark multiplied by 6 approximately.

Bill you created an expert Engine, Isn't Mizar 3.0 rated 1683
Mizar 3.0 1683 +10 −10 47.8% +21.0 16.1% 4426
86.8%
555‑557 BACE 0.45 1675 +11 −11 49.1% +4.2 17.9% 3517
48.4%
555‑557 PolarChess 1.3 1675 +13 −13 52.3% −19.3 16.8% 2719
49.5%
555‑557 SharpChess2 2.6.9 1675 +31 −31 55.8% −77.5 7.0% 511
5

[Event "Computer chess game"] [Site "DESKTOP-OFQ3C0P"] [Date "2021.02.05"] [Round "?"] [White "Sargon-engine Depth6"] [Black "Mizar_30"] [Result "1-0"] [BlackElo "1683"] [ECO "C77"] [Opening "Spanish"] [Time "20:23:33"] [Variation "Anderssen, 5...d6"] [WhiteElo "????"] [TimeControl "2400+5"] [Termination "normal"] [PlyCount "95"] [WhiteType "program"] [BlackType "program"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. Ba4 a6 6. O-O Be7 7. c3 O-O 8. Nbd2 Be6 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Nb3 a5 11. Bg5 h5 12. a4 c5 13. c4 Qb8 14. Ra3 Qb4 15. Bd2 Qb6 16. Qe1 c6 17. Nxa5 Qxb2 18. Rb3 Qc2 19. Qb1 Qxb1 20. Rfxb1 Bd8 21. Nxc6 Rxa4 22. Rb8 Nd7 23. Rxd8 Rxd8 24. Nxd8 Ra3 25. Nxe6 fxe6 26. Ne1 Ra7 27. Nf3 Kf8 28. Ng5 Ke7 29. Kf1 Ra8 30. Nf3 Kf7 31. Rb7 Kg8 32. Rxd7 Ra1+ 33. Ke2 Rb1 34. Rxd6 h4 35. Rxe6 h3 36. gxh3 Rb8 37. Rxe5 Rc8 38. Be3 Ra8 39. Bxc5 Ra2+ 40. Ke3 Rc2 41. Bd4 Kh7 42. Re7 Re2+ 43. Kxe2 Kg8 44. Rxg7+ Kf8 45. Be5 Ke8 46. Bf6 Kf8 47. Ne5 Ke8 48. Rg8# 1-0

[Chessqueen]

Here is the 3dr game, the 2nd game was a boring Draw, but based on what I see if Mizar 3.0 is rated 1683 I am starting to assume that Sargon at depth 6 must be at least 1750

[Event "Computer chess game"] [Site "DESKTOP-OFQ3C0P"] [Date "2021.02.05"] [Round "3"] [White "Sargon-engine Depth6"] [Black "Mizar_30"] [Result "1-0"] [BlackElo "1683"] [ECO "B48"] [Opening "Sicilian"] [Time "21:26:44"] [Variation "Taimanov, 6.Be3 a6 7.Qd2"] [WhiteElo "????"] [TimeControl "2400+5"] [Termination "normal"] [PlyCount "123"] [WhiteType "program"] [BlackType "program"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nf6 8. O-O-O Bb4 9. f3 O-O 10. a3 Be7 11. Be2 d5 12. Nxc6 bxc6 13. Bf4 Qb7 14. e5 Nh5 15. Be3 Rb8 16. b4 c5 17. Bxc5 Bxc5 18. g4 d4 19. Ne4 Bxb4 20. axb4 Nf4 21. Qxf4 Qxb4 22. Nd6 Qa3+ 23. Kd2 Qb4+ 24. Kd3 Qc3+ 25. Ke4 f5+ 26. exf6 Qxc2+ 27. Bd3 Qc6+ 28. Kxd4 Rb4+ 29. Nc4 Rxf6 30. Qe4 Qd5+ 31. Kc3 Qxe4 32. Bxe4 Rb8 33. Rd8+ Rf8 34. Bxh7+ Kxh7 35. Rxf8 a5 36. Rd1 a4 37. Kd2 g5 38. Ke2 a3 39. Rdd8 Ba6 40. Rh8+ Kg7 41. Rhg8+ Kf6 42. Rgf8+ Ke7 43. Rfe8+ Kf7 44. Rf8+ Ke7 45. Rxb8 Bxc4+ 46. Ke3 a2 47. Rfe8+ Kf6 48. Rf8+ Kg6 49. Ra8 Kg7 50. Rg8+ Kf6 51. Raf8+ Ke7 52. Ra8 Kf6 53. Rgf8+ Kg7 54. Rfc8 Kg6 55. Rxc4 a1=B 56. Rxa1 Kf6 57. Rc6 Ke5 58. Raa6 Kd5 59. Rxe6 Kc4 60. Rab6 Kc5 61. Ke4 Kc4 62. Rec6# 1-0

[Chessqueen]

Sorry ,but I only mentioned that the 2nd game was a boring draw, you should all see it

[Event "Computer chess game"] [Site "DESKTOP-OFQ3C0P"] [Date "2021.02.05"] [Round "2"] [White "Mizar_30"] [Black "Sargon Depth6"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [BlackElo "????"] [ECO "B84"] [Opening "Sicilian"] [Time "22:48:53"] [Variation "Scheveningen, Classical, 7.O-O Be7"] [WhiteElo "1683"] [TimeControl "2400+5"] [Termination "normal"] [PlyCount "37"] [WhiteType "program"] [BlackType "program"] 1. Nc3 c5 2. e4 d6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 a6 6. Be2 e6 7. O-O Be7 8. Be3 d5 9. e5 Ne4 10. Nxe4 dxe4 11. f3 Qd5 12. c4 Qxe5 13. f4 Qf6 14. Qc2 Qg6 15. Qa4+ Bd7 16. Qb3 Bc8 17. Qa4+ Bd7 18. Qb3 Bc8 19. Qa4+ {3-fold repetition} 1/2-1/2

[Chessqueen]

CCRL Needs to do another testing of the New Sargon with Depth 6, since this test result was NOT done with Depth 6 ==>

644 Sargon 1978 1.00 1251 +19 −19 44.4% +36.8 39.3% 1029
69.1%
645 Tikov 0.6.3 1244 +17 −17 45.1% +61.9 17.3% 1647
75.2%
646 Pierre 1.7 1236 +19 −19 54.3% −38.4 12.1% 1306
50.3%
647 Dragontooth 0.2 Bahamut 64-bit 1235 +23 −23 54.3% −34.6 13.3% 804
61.2%
648 Gringo 1.4.9b 1231 +17 −17 48.8% +30.5 16.1% 1570
53.3%
649 Raffaela 0.1.4 1230 +18 −17 42.2% +94.1 26.8% 1429
71.0%