Unfortunately, comments #2 and #4 refer to the reverse-engineering controversy instead of the merits of the TCEC contest itself.

I find such comments fortunate, people should know the truth, otherwise they may get the idea that engines like Houdini are original, something that is still not known ...

A quick test I did yesterday:

i7-920 @3.8 GHz
Fritz12 GUI
TC 1 0
Masterbook 2.0 ctg 20 moves max
each opening played twice

Houdini 1.5 x64
Deep Rybka 4 SSE42 x64

No Nalimov tablebases or GTB's
Ponder off

Results: +115 =157 -50 (+77 elo)

Are the numbers posted here real?

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 593#378593

DR4 SSE42 is not happy after 4 1/2 hours in my i7 Quad @3,8 GHz:
> ± (+1.27) d=25 1.a6 Ba5 2.Re3 Bb6 3.h4 Rd1 4.Kh2 Ne6 5.Rb3 c5 6.h5 (4:37:57) 8775231kN


b2r4/p1b1qp1k/2p3pp/P1n1P3/2B3Q1/5NN1/5PPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 1

I am interested in running progressively longer time control head-to-head matches in order to maybe find positions where one engine is clearly better than the comparison.

I started with 25 min/game matches and identified positions right out of the opening book where an engine A scored wins from ...

Does it depend on what the non-GM's have?

You might have a point. I just reviewed the FIDE ratings of players that obtained the ICCF GM title in 2009: only 5/25 are rated (2103-2382).

It is telling sth but they can be the chess composers or solvers so their chessknowledge could be based not on computer analysis only. The Elo list ...

You might have a point. I just reviewed the FIDE ratings of players that obtained the ICCF GM title in 2009: only 5/25 are rated (2103-2382).

In my opinion, all people that already know about the clones should have access to the edge, but I can't do anything about it.

Well, I really tried, and even was told that I was given green light to give access to people requesting it, but in the end only one person from 7 got access, the left ...

I agree, those of us non-programmers need to focus on chess and use all engines in our search for the truth.