SPCC: Testrun of Rebel 3.0 EAS finished

[pohl4711]

My UHO-Top15 Ratinglist is the world's first engine-ratinglist, using UHO-openings, and the world's first ratinglist offering additional Gamepair-statistics.

Testrun of Rebel 3.0 EAS finished.

Results only in the full Ratinglist:
https://www.sp-cc.de/files/uho_full_list.txt

https://www.sp-cc.de

Also take a look at the EAS-Ratinglist, the world's first engine-ratinglist not measuring strength of engines but engines's style of play:
https://www.sp-cc.de/eas-ratinglist.htm

As usual, the most spectacular sac-wins of the latest testrun (won by the tested engine) can be replayed directly on my website. The pgn-viewer (by ChessBase) needs Javascript on and Adblockers off:
https://www.sp-cc.de/view-games-with-sacs.htm

(Perhaps you have to clear your browsercache with <strg>+<shift>+<delete> to reload the graphics/diagrams on my website)

[pohl4711]

Code: Select all

                         early           bad  avg.win 
Rank  EAS-Score  sacs    sacs   shorts  draws  moves  Engine/player 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1    818536  55.32%  43.85%  53.48%  06.26%   63   CS Tal Extreme  
   2    750655  57.26%  45.49%  44.36%  05.00%   66   Patricia 5 xtremeEAS  
   3    748559  52.40%  42.58%  49.75%  08.28%   65   Rebel Extreme 1.1  
   4    712625  51.61%  43.75%  41.43%  05.49%   66   Patricia 3.1 avx2  
   5    653831  50.65%  39.79%  41.13%  07.20%   68   CSTal 2.1 EAS  
   6    643722  50.79%  41.53%  42.61%  05.85%   67   Patricia 5.0 avx512  
   7    638648  52.20%  47.83%  39.07%  05.85%   67   Cerberus 2722145081r9b  
   8    555597  46.96%  40.00%  34.95%  03.46%   70   Patricia 4.0 avx2  
   9    526843  43.56%  41.14%  33.89%  04.21%   68   Cerberus 21124081r81  
  10    487400  35.98%  35.25%  35.51%  07.05%   70   Rebel 3.0 EAS  
  11    428179  37.88%  38.53%  28.30%  08.79%   75   Rebel Extreme avx2  
  12    381300  32.46%  39.90%  28.36%  09.25%   71   Velvet 8.1.0 risky  
  13    373824  34.75%  43.68%  28.42%  10.27%   73   Velvet 8.0.0 risky  
  14    366894  31.18%  35.86%  33.98%  17.09%   71   Revenge 1.0 avx2  
  15    346606  25.24%  42.86%  29.12%  13.42%   72   Velvet 7.0.0 avx2  
  16    336032  25.14%  51.14%  27.12%  13.73%   72   Velvet 7.3.0 avx2  
  17    332254  21.29%  34.18%  31.74%  09.17%   70   Stockfish 16 230630  
  18    321512  22.08%  33.49%  30.33%  08.71%   70   Stockfish 16.1 240224  
  19    316986  20.24%  35.78%  30.36%  10.47%   70   Stockfish 15.1 221204  
  20    303911  24.87%  31.65%  25.06%  10.07%   75   Rebel EAS 2.0 avx2  

[Rebel]

Thanks for testing.

Thanks for no rants this time.

Missing, your usual negative elo remarks on Rebel / CSTal style releases. favoring your loved one.

Why not, now things are reversed this time ?

Code: Select all

Patricia 5.0 avx512       : 3465
Patricia 5 xtremeEAS      : 3395  

So we see the extreme (nice name borrowing) version of Patricia sacrificed 70 elo to win EAS points.

That's the way it goes with style programming, you sac elo to win style points, and you know that.

Code: Select all

Rebel 3.0 EAS             : 3536
Patricia 5 xtremeEAS      : 3395

Why not say Rebel 3.0 EAS is 141 elo stronger than your beloved one ?

You are pretty much biased in your reporting, it's dripping all over.

[chrisw]

Thanks for testing.

Thanks for no rants this time.

Missing, your usual negative elo remarks on Rebel / CSTal style releases. favoring your loved one.

Why not, now things are reversed this time ?

Code: Select all

Patricia 5.0 avx512       : 3465
Patricia 5 xtremeEAS      : 3395  

So we see the extreme (nice name borrowing) version of Patricia sacrificed 70 elo to win EAS points.

That's the way it goes with style programming, you sac elo to win style points, and you know that.

Code: Select all

Rebel 3.0 EAS             : 3536
Patricia 5 xtremeEAS      : 3395

Why not say Rebel 3.0 EAS is 141 elo stronger than your beloved one ?

You are pretty much biased in your reporting, it's dripping all over.

Yes, it’s not really possible to wear two hats when one is running a testing group that is supposed to be entirely neutral, else one degrades the impartial and neutral status the group has built up over the years.