Code: Select all
1234567890
1 Deep Rybka 4 x64 3175 0½½10½½½1½ 5.0/10 25.00
2 IvanHoe T63C.x64 2890 1½½01½½½0½ 5.0/10 25.00
Code: Select all
1234567890
1 Deep Rybka 4 x64 3175 0½½10½½½1½ 5.0/10 25.00
2 IvanHoe T63C.x64 2890 1½½01½½½0½ 5.0/10 25.00
Code: Select all
1 Deep Rybka 4 x64 3185 +10/-7/=33 53.00% 26.5/50
2 IvanHoe T63C.x64 3180 +7/-10/=33 47.00% 23.5/50
Code: Select all
1 Deep Rybka 4 x64 3175 +7/-6/=17 51.67% 15.5/30
2 IvanHoe T63C.x64 2890 +6/-7/=17 48.33% 14.5/30
1 Deep Rybka 4 x64 3185 +8/-6/=16 53.33% 16.0/30
2 IvanHoe T63C 3185 +6/-8/=16 46.67% 14.0/30
Code: Select all
IvanHoe vs Rybka 5+0 2010
1 IvanHoe 9.57b x64 +13/=31/-6 57.00% 28.5/50
2 Deep Rybka 4 SSE42 x64 +6/=31/-13 43.00% 21.5/50
I must be missing something. Just because the score was 0.00 for a bunch of moves (8 here), the GUI called it a draw? There could be a lot of play here, and the predicted move wassn't even a repetition. I don't think allowing GUI draws like this is a good testing method. Do we need Danailov to enforce Sofia rules in computer testing?AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor W=20.2 plies; 5,831kN/s B=17.1 plies; 284kN/s 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Nc3 Bb4 Both last book move 5. Qb3 0.12/19 11 5... Bxc3+ 0.07/16 10 6. Qxc3 0.07/21 24 6... O-O 0.08/17 6 (Bb7) 7. g3 0.04/20 17 7... a5 0.05/16 5 (Bb7) 8. Bg5 0.04/20 12 (Bg2) 8... Bb7 0.10/18 12 9. Bg2 0.00/20 9 (Bxf6) 9... d6 0.10/18 17 10. O-O 0.00/20 30 (Bxf6) 10... Nbd7 0.01/ 15 10 11. Rad1 0.00/19 3 (Nd2) 11... Re8 -0.01/16 9 (h6) 12. Nd2 0.04/20 9 (Rfe1) 12... Bxg2 -0.02/17 7 13. Kxg2 0.00/20 2 13... e5 0.00/18 10 (h6) 14. d5 0. 01/21 6 14... h6 0.00/18 9 15. Bxf6 0.00/20 1 15... Qxf6 0.00/18 7 16. Qc2 0.00/22 9 (f3) 16... Nc5 0.00/18 13 17. f3 0.00/21 2 17... a4 0.00/17 4 18. Rf2 0.00/20 1 (b4) Draw accepted
BB+ wrote:I must be missing something. Just because the score was 0.00 for a bunch of moves (8 here), the GUI called it a draw? There could be a lot of play here, and the predicted move wassn't even a repetition. I don't think allowing GUI draws like this is a good testing method. Do we need Danailov to enforce Sofia rules in computer testing?AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor W=20.2 plies; 5,831kN/s B=17.1 plies; 284kN/s 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Nc3 Bb4 Both last book move 5. Qb3 0.12/19 11 5... Bxc3+ 0.07/16 10 6. Qxc3 0.07/21 24 6... O-O 0.08/17 6 (Bb7) 7. g3 0.04/20 17 7... a5 0.05/16 5 (Bb7) 8. Bg5 0.04/20 12 (Bg2) 8... Bb7 0.10/18 12 9. Bg2 0.00/20 9 (Bxf6) 9... d6 0.10/18 17 10. O-O 0.00/20 30 (Bxf6) 10... Nbd7 0.01/ 15 10 11. Rad1 0.00/19 3 (Nd2) 11... Re8 -0.01/16 9 (h6) 12. Nd2 0.04/20 9 (Rfe1) 12... Bxg2 -0.02/17 7 13. Kxg2 0.00/20 2 13... e5 0.00/18 10 (h6) 14. d5 0. 01/21 6 14... h6 0.00/18 9 15. Bxf6 0.00/20 1 15... Qxf6 0.00/18 7 16. Qc2 0.00/22 9 (f3) 16... Nc5 0.00/18 13 17. f3 0.00/21 2 17... a4 0.00/17 4 18. Rf2 0.00/20 1 (b4) Draw accepted
Code: Select all
Ivanhoe v Rybka R001, 4'/40+4'/40+4'/40 2010
1 Deep Rybka 4 x64 +14/=25/-11 53.00% 26.5/50
2 IvanHoe 9.57b x64 +11/=25/-14 47.00% 23.5/50