Stockfish Testing Queue

Pending - 0 tests 0.0 hrs

None

Active - 0 tests

Finished - 1021 tests

06-04-18 jo ct_experiment diff
ELO: 171.42 +-3.0 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 30000 W: 15546 L: 1839 D: 12615
30000 @ 10+0.1 th 1 How is this one doing against a weaker opponent (SF7)? Baseline is fisherman's latest test http://tests.stockfishchess.org/tests/view/5ac4a01f0ebc590305f0f425
31-03-18 jo ct_experiment diff
ELO: -1.68 +-2.1 (95%) LOS: 5.8%
Total: 40000 W: 7464 L: 7657 D: 24879
40000 @ 10+0.1 th 1 A first measurement of a contempt experiment. Can we achieve the same by shifting the draw score instead of the evaluation? (Rescheduled, modifying doesn't put it back into queue ...)
30-03-18 jo ct_experiment diff
ELO: -2.01 +-2.8 (95%) LOS: 7.8%
Total: 22847 W: 4273 L: 4405 D: 14169
40000 @ 10+0.1 th 1 A first measurement of a contempt experiment. Can we achieve the same by shifting the draw score instead of the evaluation?
26-03-18 jo qsft diff
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 25816 W: 5244 L: 5253 D: 15319
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 2.
26-03-18 jo qsft diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 45327 W: 9305 L: 9222 D: 26800
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 After the recent changes retest this old idea. Take 1.
21-03-18 jo init1 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 7215 W: 1420 L: 1554 D: 4241
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 3.
20-03-18 jo init1 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 7052 W: 1346 L: 1480 D: 4226
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Tuned values (SPSA), take 2.
18-03-18 jo prefetch_probcut diff
ELO: -0.18 +-2.2 (95%) LOS: 43.9%
Total: 27586 W: 4125 L: 4139 D: 19322
30000 @ 60+0.6 th 1 Let's see at LTC with bigger hash if there is any benefit in having the prefetch in ProbCut.
18-03-18 jo prefetch_probcut diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19086 W: 3881 L: 3921 D: 11284
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Add a prefetch in ProbCut. Not sure this has been tried before.
16-03-18 jo init1 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 19642 W: 4040 L: 4127 D: 11475
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Try some early tuning values for complexity factors.
14-03-18 jo dynamic_ct2 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 7886 W: 1606 L: 1698 D: 4582
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Change draw scores again. Last try before trying to tune. Test with Contempt=16.
14-03-18 jo dynamic_ct diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 18179 W: 3807 L: 3850 D: 10522
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 2 with tweaked formula, to always keep some amount of contempt, even when winning/losing. Test with Contempt=20.
14-03-18 jo dynamic_ct diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 8888 W: 1970 L: 2058 D: 4860
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Decreasing dynamic contempt based on previous best score. (Even in MultiPV mode all PV lines are now being searched with the same contempt.) Take 1. Test with Contempt=40
13-03-18 jo dynamic_ct diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 20993 W: 4375 L: 4405 D: 12213
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Decreasing dynamic contempt based on previous best score. (Even in MultiPV mode all PV lines are now being searched with the same contempt.) Take 1. Test with Contempt=20
27-02-18 jo multipv_old2 diff
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 2420 W: 958 L: 1195 D: 267
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Test the modified multiPV search with Skill Level 10 for no regression. (It looks like 'Skill Level' was not set in the 1st test, so now try without quotation marks..)
22-02-18 jo multipv_old2 diff
LLR: -3.77 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 113103 W: 24499 L: 24931 D: 63673
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Test the modified multiPV search with Skill Level 10 for no regression. (Not sure the quotation marks around 'Skill Level' are needed; in local testing they are.)
25-02-18 jo distribute_rm1 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 1886 W: 336 L: 457 D: 1093
sprt @ 5+0.05 th 7 SMP patch. Odd/even distribution of root moves across the helper threads.
23-02-18 jo mcp1 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 15192 W: 3386 L: 3442 D: 8364
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 3. Be only more cautious after previous first or second move.
23-02-18 jo mcp1 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 33712 W: 7410 L: 7375 D: 18927
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Movecount pruning tweak. Less pruning after prior early moves.
23-02-18 jo mcp1 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 1918 W: 351 L: 472 D: 1095
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 2. More drastic.
18-02-18 jo remove_dyn_ct diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 89968 W: 19357 L: 19697 D: 50914
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Remove dynamic contempt and explicitly reset 'bestValue' at the start of the MultiPV loop. Current dynamic contempt is buggy in case of a multiPV search because 'bestValue' refers to the previous PV line. (Local simplification test sprt(-4, 0) is looking good so far.)
06-02-18 jo multipv_old2 diff
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 149486 W: 33049 L: 33181 D: 83256
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Finally, test for no regression in SinglePV mode. STC only.
06-02-18 jo multipv_old2 diff
LLR: 2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3147 W: 1182 L: 1004 D: 961
sprt @ 60+0.6 th 1 LTC: Retest the bugfixed version.
06-02-18 jo multipv_old2 diff
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 1741 W: 726 L: 553 D: 462
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Retest the bugfixed version.
01-02-18 jo multipv_old2 diff
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2260 W: 848 L: 679 D: 733
sprt @ 60+0.6 th 1 LTC: Let's check the 'old' multipv search as suggested by Stefano.
01-02-18 jo multipv_old2 diff
LLR: 2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 3113 W: 1248 L: 1064 D: 801
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Let's check the 'old' multipv search as suggested by Stefano.
25-01-18 jo outpost_xp diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 10576 W: 2333 L: 2456 D: 5787
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Values changed significantly, so retest. Take 2.
21-01-18 jo cutNode3 diff
LLR: -2.94 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 6474 W: 1061 L: 1158 D: 4255
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 If the reduced depth search fails high, set cutNode to true. Final try.
21-01-18 jo cutNode3 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 2210 W: 341 L: 457 D: 1412
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 One last try, please. We only do a full depth search for the first move, hoping for a cutoff, or if the reduced depth search failed high. Is it safe to assume for both cases that the child node is an ALL node?
20-01-18 jo cutNode3 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 5415 W: 917 L: 1055 D: 3443
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Do the reduced depth search with !cutNode just like the full depth search. This will most likely fail because of doing less reductions now. Last take on this series.
20-01-18 jo cutNode3 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 4800 W: 807 L: 912 D: 3081
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 If we didn't fail-high at an expected after the first 3 moves, change node type. Take 3.
20-01-18 jo outpost_xp diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 7170 W: 1290 L: 1423 D: 4457
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Yet another tuning experiment.
19-01-18 jo cutNode3 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 16769 W: 2969 L: 3068 D: 10732
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Set cutNode to false for the null-move search. Take 2. (Test as tuning patch.)
19-01-18 jo cutNode3 diff
LLR: -2.97 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 1464 W: 204 L: 323 D: 937
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Change node type if the null-move fails.
05-01-18 jo weak_backrank diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12686 W: 2244 L: 2315 D: 8127
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 2. Double penalty.
04-01-18 jo weak_backrank diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 24746 W: 4444 L: 4464 D: 15838
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 My try on a penalty for a weak backrank.
25-12-17 jo imbal_fine_epd diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 15324 W: 2717 L: 2821 D: 9786
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Fine tuned values after 225k games.
13-12-17 jo isolated diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 11392 W: 2077 L: 2195 D: 7120
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 CLOP tuning try with a big set of positions as used by Texel tuning method instead of an opening book.
12-12-17 jo remove_doubled diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 24098 W: 4276 L: 4474 D: 15348
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Is the current handling of doubled pawns still useful?
10-12-17 jo ext_iter6 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 13755 W: 2424 L: 2491 D: 8840
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Always extend checks close to the root. Take 2.
10-12-17 jo ext_iter6 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19794 W: 3558 L: 3599 D: 12637
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Extend checks during the first iterations even with bad SEE. Take 1.
09-12-17 jo lmr_iter4 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 1949 W: 311 L: 429 D: 1209
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Limit reduction during the first iterations. Another try.
05-12-17 jo centerBind2 diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 102597 W: 18685 L: 18373 D: 65539
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 3. (Now with correct bench.)
05-12-17 jo centerBind2 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 33410 W: 6052 L: 6035 D: 21323
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Take 2.
04-12-17 jo centerBind2 diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 6941 W: 1209 L: 1305 D: 4427
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Reinstall center binds.
29-11-17 jo always_imb diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 19770 W: 3560 L: 3601 D: 12609
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Now also test correctly for the bishop pair.
24-11-17 jo always_imb diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [-3.00,1.00]
Total: 191760 W: 34190 L: 34672 D: 122898
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Always compute imbalance eval. Test for no regression.
23-11-17 jo Tempo diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 12933 W: 2294 L: 2364 D: 8275
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Start with a simpler version.
20-11-17 jo Tempo diff
LLR: -2.96 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,5.00]
Total: 14326 W: 2507 L: 2572 D: 9247
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Tempo bonus based on position. Take 1.
19-11-17 jo sf_tweak diff
LLR: -2.95 (-2.94,2.94) [0.00,4.00]
Total: 37139 W: 6593 L: 6624 D: 23922
sprt @ 10+0.1 th 1 Tweak ScaleFactor of some endgames.