Skip to content
Classement général · échelle Ordo

Performance Elo — tournois maison

Cotes Ordo (fit global) depuis le PGN du laboratoire, complétées des moteurs dédiés figés. Cliquer un moteur ✱ fait défiler vers son débrief.

RangMoteur / SystèmeHardwareEloPartiesErr ±
1 Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3695120±18
2 Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3684120±18
3 Fritz 20 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3674170±15
4 Rebel-16.3 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3660180±15
5 Lc0 v0.32.1 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3656100±20
6 Stockfish 11 64 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3637274±12
7 Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3555335±11
8 Wasp 7.00 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3555170±15
9 Fire 8 x64 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3530198±14
10 Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%351697±20
11 Ethereal 12.75 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3514215±14
12 Caissa 1.5 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3495185±15
13 Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3477130±18
14 Wasp 5.50 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3458153±16
15 Ethereal 11.75 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3454144±17
16 Xiphos 0.6 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3454180±15
17 Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3448338±11
18 Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%344570±24
19 rofChade 2.3 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3414179±15
20 Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3394397±10
21 Laser 1.7 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3378180±14
22 Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3339154±16
23 Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3337180±14
24 Gull 3 x64 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3315158±16
25 Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3259143±17
26 Wasp 3.75 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3255161±16
27 Senpai 2.0 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%318581±22
28 Wasp 2.00 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3170128±18
29 Naum 4.2 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3167108±19
30 Komodo64 3 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3154122±18
31 Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3037121±18
32 Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%3000102±20
33 Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2990142±17
34 Loop M1-T — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2914120±18
35 Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2876130±18
36 Shredder 10 UCI — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2850229±13
37 Shredder 6 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%279960±26
38 Fritz 8 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%278890±20
39 Deep Junior 7 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2784169±15
40 Fritz 7 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%277290±21
41 ProDeo 2.0 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2758219±13
42 Hiarcs 8 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2753103±20
43 Junior 8 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2742138±17
44 Deep Fritz — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%273270±24
45 Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 ThreadsAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2727118±18
46 Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2721121±18
47 Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2720186±15
48 Junior 7 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2700189±14
49 Gandalf 6.01 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%268485±22
50 SOS 5 for Arena — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2671193±14
51 List 512 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2666212±14
52 Fritz 6 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2656368±10
53 Nimzo 8 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2612171±15
54 Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2600126±18
55 Fritz 5.32 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2589195±14
56 Yace Paderborn — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2570110±19
57Cray Blitz 4.9hAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%253170±19
58 Rebel 6.0 — 1 ThreadAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%243434±31
59Mephisto Genius 68030 Londoncb-emu2363349±13
60Mephisto Berlin Pro 68020cb-emu2315349±15
61Mephisto RISC IIcb-emu2266342±16
62Saitek RISC 2500 v1.04cb-emu2247348±17
63Mephisto Dallas 68000-UCIAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2233238±21
64Novag Star Diamond (v1.04)cb-emu2226350±17
65Saitek Sparc (rev.518)cb-emu2153347±19
66Mephisto Berlin 68000 v0.03cb-emu2135349±19
67Fidelity Elite Avantgarde V9cb-emu2125350±19
68Novag Sapphirecb-emu2123334±20
69Mephisto MM5 (v5.1)-UCIAMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D 100%2108264±23
70Fidelity Designer Mach IVcb-emu2090350±20
71Fidelity Designer Mach IIIcb-emu2029348±21
72Mephisto Mondial 68000 XLcb-emu1973346±21
73Novag Zircon IIcb-emu1970334±22
74Saitek Presidentcb-emu1958344±21
75Mephisto Nigel Shortcb-emu1956349±21
76Saitek Maestro D++cb-emu1923348±21
77Novag Super Forte C v3.6cb-emu1901349±21
78Novag Super Expert C v3.6cb-emu1894349±21
79Novag Turquoisecb-emu1871344±21
80Saitek Corona II (ver. D+)cb-emu1856350±21
81Mephisto Modena (set 3)cb-emu1850349±21
82Saitek Turbo King II (D+)cb-emu1844348±21
83Mephisto MM V (v5.1)cb-emu1835350±21
84Mephisto MM IV (v7.10)cb-emu1808348±21
85Fidelity Designer 2100cb-emu1808348±21
86Novag Constellation Forte Acb-emu1803350±21
87Saitek Simultano (ver. B)cb-emu1764349±20
88Fidelity Par Excellence (B)cb-emu1742347±20
89Saitek Prismacb-emu1724349±19
90Fidelity Designer 2000cb-emu1703348±19
91Novag Super VIP v3.7cb-emu1640348±17
92Tandy Chess Champion 2150cb-emu1577346±16
93Saitek Turbo 16Kcb-emu1437348±11
94Saitek Leonardo (v1.4)cb-emu1285347±8
✱ = débrief cliquable · moteurs en italique = figés (machines dédiées)
Débriefs · adversaire par adversaire

Débrief de chaque gauntlet

Perf locale = cote Ordo de l'adversaire + 400·log₁₀(p/(1−p)). Sa dispersion reflète la transitivité du moteur.

Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 3695 · 120 parties · 59.2 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo3695± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 Thread36842010/2050.0 %+0/=20/−03684
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads36742010.5/2052.5 %+1/=19/−03692
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads36602010.5/2052.5 %+1/=19/−03677
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads36372013/2065.0 %+7/=12/−13744
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35552012.5/2062.5 %+5/=15/−03644
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads35552014.5/2072.5 %+9/=11/−03723
Meilleur : 72 % vs Wasp 7.00 8CPU · plus dur : 50 % vs Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1.

Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 3684 · 120 parties · 57.5 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo3684± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 Thread36952010/2050.0 %+0/=20/−03695
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads36742010/2050.0 %+0/=20/−03674
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads36602011/2055.0 %+2/=18/−03695
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads36372012.5/2062.5 %+5/=15/−03726
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35552012/2060.0 %+4/=16/−03626
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads35552013.5/2067.5 %+7/=13/−03682
Meilleur : 68 % vs Wasp 7.00 8CPU · plus dur : 50 % vs Caissa 1.24 AVX-512.

Fritz 20 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3674 · 155 parties · 58.1 % · err ±16

Cote Ordo3674± 16
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 Thread3695209.5/2047.5 %+0/=19/−13677
Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 Thread36842010/2050.0 %+0/=20/−03684
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads36602010.5/2052.5 %+1/=19/−03677
Lc0 v0.32.1 — 1 Thread36562010.5/2052.5 %+1/=19/−03673
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637159/1560.0 %+3/=12/−03707
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35551510.5/1570.0 %+6/=9/−03702
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555159.5/1563.3 %+4/=11/−03650
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514159/1560.0 %+3/=12/−03585
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads34951511.5/1576.7 %+8/=7/−03702
Meilleur : 77 % vs Caissa 1.5 8CPU · plus dur : 48 % vs Caissa 1.24 AVX-512.

Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3660 · 180 parties · 57.5 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo3660± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 Thread3695209.5/2047.5 %+0/=19/−13677
Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 Thread3684209/2045.0 %+0/=18/−23649
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads3674209.5/2047.5 %+0/=19/−13657
Lc0 v0.32.1 — 1 Thread3656209/2045.0 %+0/=18/−23621
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads36372011/2055.0 %+3/=16/−13672
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35552011.5/2057.5 %+3/=17/−03608
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads35302012.5/2062.5 %+6/=13/−13618
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads35142016/2080.0 %+12/=8/−03755
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads34952015.5/2077.5 %+11/=9/−03710
Meilleur : 80 % vs Ethereal 12.75 8CPU · plus dur : 45 % vs Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1.

Lc0 v0.32.1 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 3656 · 100 parties · 55.5 % · err ±20

Cote Ordo3656± 20
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads3674209.5/2047.5 %+0/=19/−13657
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads36602011/2055.0 %+2/=18/−03695
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads36372011.5/2057.5 %+3/=17/−03689
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35552011/2055.0 %+2/=18/−03590
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads35552012.5/2062.5 %+5/=15/−03644
Meilleur : 62 % vs Wasp 7.00 8CPU · plus dur : 48 % vs Fritz 20 8CPU.

Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3637 · 274 parties · 63.9 % · err ±12

Cote Ordo3637± 12
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 Thread3695207/2035.0 %+1/=12/−73587
Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 Thread3684207.5/2037.5 %+0/=15/−53595
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads3674156/1540.0 %+0/=12/−33604
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads3660209/2045.0 %+1/=16/−33625
Lc0 v0.32.1 — 1 Thread3656208.5/2042.5 %+0/=17/−33604
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35552013/2065.0 %+6/=14/−03663
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads35301913/1968.4 %+7/=12/−03664
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads35142013/2065.0 %+6/=14/−03622
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads34542014/2070.0 %+8/=12/−03601
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads34482016/2080.0 %+12/=8/−03689
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads34142016/2080.0 %+12/=8/−03655
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942018/2090.0 %+16/=4/−03776
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782016/2080.0 %+12/=8/−03618
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372018/2090.0 %+16/=4/−03719
Meilleur : 90 % vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 35 % vs Caissa 1.24 AVX-512.

Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3555 · 335 parties · 53.9 % · err ±11

Cote Ordo3555± 11
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 Thread3695207.5/2037.5 %+0/=15/−53606
Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 Thread3684208/2040.0 %+0/=16/−43614
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads3674154.5/1530.0 %+0/=9/−63527
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads3660208.5/2042.5 %+0/=17/−33608
Lc0 v0.32.1 — 1 Thread3656209/2045.0 %+0/=18/−23621
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637207/2035.0 %+0/=14/−63529
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555125.5/1245.8 %+1/=9/−23526
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads35302013/2065.0 %+6/=14/−03637
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516127/1258.3 %+2/=10/−03575
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514209/2045.0 %+1/=16/−33479
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495126/1250.0 %+0/=12/−03495
Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads3477126/1250.0 %+1/=10/−13477
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads34542012.5/2062.5 %+6/=13/−13543
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads34483220/3262.5 %+9/=22/−13537
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads34142013.5/2067.5 %+7/=13/−03541
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942014/2070.0 %+8/=12/−03541
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782014/2070.0 %+8/=12/−03525
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372015.5/2077.5 %+12/=7/−13552
Meilleur : 78 % vs Defenchess 2.2 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 30 % vs Fritz 20 8CPU.

Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3555 · 170 parties · 48.2 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo3555± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Caissa 1.24 AVX-512 — 1 Thread3695205.5/2027.5 %+0/=11/−93526
Lc0 v0.31.0-rc1 — 1 Thread3684206.5/2032.5 %+0/=13/−73557
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads3674155.5/1536.7 %+0/=11/−43579
Lc0 v0.32.1 — 1 Thread3656207.5/2037.5 %+0/=15/−53567
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555126.5/1254.2 %+2/=9/−13584
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516137/1353.8 %+1/=12/−03543
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495158/1553.3 %+2/=12/−13518
Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads3477159.5/1563.3 %+4/=11/−03572
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads34541510/1566.7 %+6/=8/−13575
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448159.5/1563.3 %+5/=9/−13543
Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads3445106.5/1065.0 %+3/=7/−03552
Meilleur : 67 % vs Ethereal 11.75 8CPU · plus dur : 28 % vs Caissa 1.24 AVX-512.

Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3530 · 198 parties · 56.8 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo3530± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads3660207.5/2037.5 %+1/=13/−63571
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637196/1931.6 %+0/=12/−73502
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555207/2035.0 %+0/=14/−63448
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads35142010.5/2052.5 %+3/=15/−23532
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads34542011.5/2057.5 %+3/=17/−03506
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads34482013.5/2067.5 %+8/=11/−13575
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads34141913.5/1971.1 %+8/=11/−03570
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942013/2065.0 %+7/=12/−13502
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782013.5/2067.5 %+8/=11/−13504
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372016.5/2082.5 %+13/=7/−03606
Meilleur : 82 % vs Defenchess 2.2 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 32 % vs Stockfish 11 64 8CPU.

Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3516 · 97 parties · 54.1 % · err ±20

Cote Ordo3516± 20
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555125/1241.7 %+0/=10/−23497
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555136/1346.2 %+0/=12/−13528
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495137/1353.8 %+2/=10/−13522
Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads3477138.5/1365.4 %+4/=9/−03587
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads3458128/1266.7 %+4/=8/−03579
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads3454125.5/1245.8 %+0/=11/−13425
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448126.5/1254.2 %+2/=9/−13477
Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads3445106/1060.0 %+2/=8/−03515
Meilleur : 67 % vs Wasp 5.50 8CPU · plus dur : 42 % vs Komodo 14.1 64-bit 8CPU.

Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3514 · 215 parties · 52.8 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo3514± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads3674156/1540.0 %+0/=12/−33604
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads3660204/2020.0 %+0/=8/−123419
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637207/2035.0 %+0/=14/−63529
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35552011/2055.0 %+3/=16/−13590
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads3530209.5/2047.5 %+2/=15/−33512
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads34542011.5/2057.5 %+3/=17/−03506
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads34482012/2060.0 %+4/=16/−03519
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads34142011/2055.0 %+2/=18/−03449
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942012/2060.0 %+4/=16/−03464
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782014/2070.0 %+9/=10/−13525
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372015.5/2077.5 %+11/=9/−03552
Meilleur : 78 % vs Defenchess 2.2 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 20 % vs Rebel-16.3 8CPU.

Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3495 · 185 parties · 48.4 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo3495± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Fritz 20 — 8 Threads3674153.5/1523.3 %+0/=7/−83468
Rebel-16.3 — 8 Threads3660204.5/2022.5 %+0/=9/−113445
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555126/1250.0 %+0/=12/−03555
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555157/1546.7 %+1/=12/−23532
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516136/1346.2 %+1/=10/−23490
Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads34772011.5/2057.5 %+4/=15/−13529
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads34582010.5/2052.5 %+2/=17/−13476
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads34542010.5/2052.5 %+2/=17/−13472
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads34482011.5/2057.5 %+3/=17/−03501
Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads3445106/1060.0 %+2/=8/−03515
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942012.5/2062.5 %+5/=15/−03483
Meilleur : 62 % vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 22 % vs Rebel-16.3 8CPU.

Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3477 · 110 parties · 47.7 % · err ±19

Cote Ordo3477± 19
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555126/1250.0 %+1/=10/−13555
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555155.5/1536.7 %+0/=11/−43460
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516134.5/1334.6 %+0/=9/−43406
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495208.5/2042.5 %+1/=15/−43443
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads34582011.5/2057.5 %+4/=15/−13511
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads34542011/2055.0 %+3/=16/−13489
Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads3445105.5/1055.0 %+2/=7/−13480
Meilleur : 57 % vs Wasp 5.50 8CPU · plus dur : 35 % vs Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit 8CPU.

Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3458 · 153 parties · 54.6 % · err ±16

Cote Ordo3458± 16
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516124/1233.3 %+0/=8/−43396
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495209.5/2047.5 %+1/=17/−23478
Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads3477208.5/2042.5 %+1/=15/−43424
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads3454138/1361.5 %+4/=8/−13536
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448188.5/1847.2 %+1/=15/−23429
Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads3445104.5/1045.0 %+1/=7/−23410
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942010/2050.0 %+3/=14/−33394
Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads33392016/2080.0 %+12/=8/−03580
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads33152014.5/2072.5 %+9/=11/−03484
Meilleur : 80 % vs Houdini 4 Pro x64 8CPU · plus dur : 33 % vs Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit 8CPU.

Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3454 · 144 parties · 50.7 % · err ±17

Cote Ordo3454± 17
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555155/1533.3 %+1/=8/−63435
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516126.5/1254.2 %+1/=11/−03546
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495209.5/2047.5 %+1/=17/−23478
Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads3477209/2045.0 %+1/=16/−33442
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads3458135/1338.5 %+1/=8/−43377
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448147/1450.0 %+1/=12/−13448
Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads3445106/1060.0 %+3/=6/−13515
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394148/1457.1 %+3/=10/−13444
Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads3339139/1369.2 %+5/=8/−03480
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads3315138/1361.5 %+3/=10/−03397
Meilleur : 69 % vs Houdini 4 Pro x64 8CPU · plus dur : 33 % vs Wasp 7.00 8CPU.

Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3454 · 180 parties · 48.3 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo3454± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637206/2030.0 %+0/=12/−83490
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555207.5/2037.5 %+1/=13/−63466
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads3530208.5/2042.5 %+0/=17/−33477
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514208.5/2042.5 %+0/=17/−33462
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448209.5/2047.5 %+0/=19/−13431
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads34142012/2060.0 %+5/=14/−13484
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942012/2060.0 %+4/=16/−03464
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782010.5/2052.5 %+5/=11/−43395
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372012.5/2062.5 %+5/=15/−03426
Meilleur : 62 % vs Defenchess 2.2 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 30 % vs Stockfish 11 64 8CPU.

Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3448 · 338 parties · 49.0 % · err ±11

Cote Ordo3448± 11
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637204/2020.0 %+0/=8/−123396
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads35553212/3237.5 %+1/=22/−93466
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555155.5/1536.7 %+1/=9/−53460
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads3530206.5/2032.5 %+1/=11/−83403
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516125.5/1245.8 %+1/=9/−23487
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514208/2040.0 %+0/=16/−43444
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495208.5/2042.5 %+0/=17/−33443
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads3458189.5/1852.8 %+2/=15/−13478
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads3454147/1450.0 %+1/=12/−13454
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads34542010.5/2052.5 %+1/=19/−03471
Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads3445104.5/1045.0 %+1/=7/−23410
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads3414209.5/2047.5 %+2/=15/−33396
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33943922.5/3957.7 %+7/=31/−13448
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782012/2060.0 %+4/=16/−03448
Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads33391914/1973.7 %+11/=6/−23518
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372012.5/2062.5 %+6/=13/−13426
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads33151913.5/1971.1 %+9/=9/−13471
Meilleur : 74 % vs Houdini 4 Pro x64 8CPU · plus dur : 20 % vs Stockfish 11 64 8CPU.

Rebel-Extreme-1.1 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3445 · 70 parties · 44.3 % · err ±24

Cote Ordo3445± 24
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Wasp 7.00 — 8 Threads3555103.5/1035.0 %+0/=7/−33447
Komodo 12.1.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3516104/1040.0 %+0/=8/−23446
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495104/1040.0 %+0/=8/−23425
Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT — 8 Threads3477104.5/1045.0 %+1/=7/−23442
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads3458105.5/1055.0 %+2/=7/−13493
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads3454104/1040.0 %+1/=6/−33384
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448105.5/1055.0 %+2/=7/−13483
Meilleur : 55 % vs Booot 6.5_x64 8CPU · plus dur : 35 % vs Wasp 7.00 8CPU.

rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3414 · 179 parties · 42.5 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo3414± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637204/2020.0 %+0/=8/−123396
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555206.5/2032.5 %+0/=13/−73428
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads3530195.5/1928.9 %+0/=11/−83374
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514209/2045.0 %+0/=18/−23479
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads3454208/2040.0 %+1/=14/−53383
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads34482010.5/2052.5 %+3/=15/−23466
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942010/2050.0 %+3/=14/−33394
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782011/2055.0 %+5/=12/−33412
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372011.5/2057.5 %+5/=13/−23390
Meilleur : 57 % vs Defenchess 2.2 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 20 % vs Stockfish 11 64 8CPU.

Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3394 · 397 parties · 51.8 % · err ±10

Cote Ordo3394± 10
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637202/2010.0 %+0/=4/−163255
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555206/2030.0 %+0/=12/−83408
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads3530207/2035.0 %+1/=12/−73422
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514208/2040.0 %+0/=16/−43444
Caissa 1.5 — 8 Threads3495207.5/2037.5 %+0/=15/−53406
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads34582010/2050.0 %+3/=14/−33458
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads3454146/1442.9 %+1/=10/−33405
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads3454208/2040.0 %+0/=16/−43383
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads34483916.5/3942.3 %+1/=31/−73394
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads34142010/2050.0 %+3/=14/−33414
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782012/2060.0 %+4/=16/−03448
Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads33392513.5/2554.0 %+5/=17/−33367
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372011/2055.0 %+3/=16/−13372
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads33152012/2060.0 %+6/=12/−23386
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads32592013.5/2067.5 %+9/=9/−23386
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads32552013.5/2067.5 %+7/=13/−03382
Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads31852016.5/2082.5 %+13/=7/−03454
Naum 4.2 — 8 Threads31671914.5/1976.3 %+10/=9/−03370
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread31542018/2090.0 %+16/=4/−03535
Meilleur : 90 % vs Komodo64 3 · plus dur : 10 % vs Stockfish 11 64 8CPU.

Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3378 · 180 parties · 37.2 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo3378± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637204/2020.0 %+0/=8/−123396
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555206/2030.0 %+0/=12/−83408
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads3530206.5/2032.5 %+1/=11/−83403
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514206/2030.0 %+1/=10/−93367
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads3454209.5/2047.5 %+4/=11/−53437
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448208/2040.0 %+0/=16/−43378
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads3414209/2045.0 %+3/=12/−53379
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394208/2040.0 %+0/=16/−43324
Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads33372010/2050.0 %+2/=16/−23337
Meilleur : 50 % vs Defenchess 2.2 x64 8CPU · plus dur : 20 % vs Stockfish 11 64 8CPU.

Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3339 · 154 parties · 47.7 % · err ±16

Cote Ordo3339± 16
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads3458204/2020.0 %+0/=8/−123218
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads3454134/1330.8 %+0/=8/−53314
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448195/1926.3 %+2/=6/−113269
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads33942511.5/2546.0 %+3/=17/−53366
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads33152613.5/2651.9 %+5/=17/−43329
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads32592618/2669.2 %+11/=14/−13400
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads32552517.5/2570.0 %+11/=13/−13402
Meilleur : 70 % vs Wasp 3.75 8CPU · plus dur : 20 % vs Wasp 5.50 8CPU.

Defenchess 2.2 x64 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3337 · 180 parties · 31.7 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo3337± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Stockfish 11 64 — 8 Threads3637202/2010.0 %+0/=4/−163255
Komodo 14.1 64-bit — 8 Threads3555204.5/2022.5 %+1/=7/−123340
Fire 8 x64 — 8 Threads3530203.5/2017.5 %+0/=7/−133260
Ethereal 12.75 — 8 Threads3514204.5/2022.5 %+0/=9/−113299
Xiphos 0.6 — 8 Threads3454207.5/2037.5 %+0/=15/−53365
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448207.5/2037.5 %+1/=13/−63359
rofChade 2.3 — 8 Threads3414208.5/2042.5 %+2/=13/−53361
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394209/2045.0 %+1/=16/−33359
Laser 1.7 — 8 Threads33782010/2050.0 %+2/=16/−23378
Meilleur : 50 % vs Laser 1.7 8CPU · plus dur : 10 % vs Stockfish 11 64 8CPU.

Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3315 · 158 parties · 46.5 % · err ±16

Cote Ordo3315± 16
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Wasp 5.50 — 8 Threads3458205.5/2027.5 %+0/=11/−93290
Ethereal 11.75 — 8 Threads3454135/1338.5 %+0/=10/−33373
Booot 6.5_x64 — 8 Threads3448195.5/1928.9 %+1/=9/−93292
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394208/2040.0 %+2/=12/−63324
Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads33392612.5/2648.1 %+4/=17/−53325
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads32592011.5/2057.5 %+5/=13/−23312
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads32552011/2055.0 %+6/=10/−43290
Naum 4.2 — 8 Threads31672014.5/2072.5 %+10/=9/−13335
Meilleur : 72 % vs Naum 4.2 8CPU · plus dur : 28 % vs Wasp 5.50 8CPU.

Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3259 · 143 parties · 51.4 % · err ±17

Cote Ordo3259± 17
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394206.5/2032.5 %+2/=9/−93267
Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads3339268/2630.8 %+1/=14/−113198
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads3315208.5/2042.5 %+2/=13/−53263
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads3255135.5/1342.3 %+1/=9/−33201
Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads3185127/1258.3 %+4/=6/−23243
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads31701310/1376.9 %+7/=6/−03379
Naum 4.2 — 8 Threads3167138/1361.5 %+4/=8/−13249
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread3154139/1369.2 %+6/=6/−13295
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads30371311/1384.6 %+9/=4/−03333
Meilleur : 85 % vs Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit 8CPU · plus dur : 31 % vs Houdini 4 Pro x64 8CPU.

Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3255 · 161 parties · 50.9 % · err ±16

Cote Ordo3255± 16
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394206.5/2032.5 %+0/=13/−73267
Houdini 4 Pro x64 — 8 Threads3339257.5/2530.0 %+1/=13/−113192
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads3315209/2045.0 %+4/=10/−63280
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads3259137.5/1357.7 %+3/=9/−13313
Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads318595.5/961.1 %+2/=7/−03263
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads31702917/2958.6 %+7/=20/−23231
Naum 4.2 — 8 Threads31673018.5/3061.7 %+10/=17/−33250
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread31541510.5/1570.0 %+6/=9/−03301
Meilleur : 70 % vs Komodo64 3 · plus dur : 30 % vs Houdini 4 Pro x64 8CPU.

Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3185 · 81 parties · 44.4 % · err ±22

Cote Ordo3185± 22
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394203.5/2017.5 %+0/=7/−133125
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads3259125/1241.7 %+2/=6/−43201
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads325593.5/938.9 %+0/=7/−23177
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads3170106/1060.0 %+3/=6/−13241
Naum 4.2 — 8 Threads3167105/1050.0 %+3/=4/−33167
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread3154106/1060.0 %+5/=2/−33224
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads3037107/1070.0 %+5/=4/−13184
Meilleur : 70 % vs Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit 8CPU · plus dur : 18 % vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 8CPU.

Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3170 · 128 parties · 57.4 % · err ±17

Cote Ordo3170± 17
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads3259133/1323.1 %+0/=6/−73050
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads32552912/2941.4 %+2/=20/−73195
Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads3185104/1040.0 %+1/=6/−33114
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread3154168/1650.0 %+2/=12/−23154
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads30371511.5/1576.7 %+9/=5/−13243
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread30001512.5/1583.3 %+10/=5/−03279
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads29901511.5/1576.7 %+8/=7/−03197
Loop M1-T — 8 Threads29141511/1573.3 %+8/=6/−13090
Meilleur : 83 % vs Gull 1.2 x64 · plus dur : 23 % vs Critter 1.6a 64-bit 8CPU.

Naum 4.2 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3167 · 108 parties · 36.6 % · err ±19

Cote Ordo3167± 19
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394194.5/1923.7 %+0/=9/−103191
Gull 3 x64 — 8 Threads3315205.5/2027.5 %+1/=9/−103147
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads3259135/1338.5 %+1/=8/−43177
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads32553011.5/3038.3 %+3/=17/−103173
Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads3185105/1050.0 %+3/=4/−33185
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread3154168/1650.0 %+3/=10/−33154
Meilleur : 50 % vs Senpai 2.0 8CPU · plus dur : 24 % vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 8CPU.

Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 3154 · 122 parties · 45.9 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo3154± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 Threads3394202/2010.0 %+0/=4/−163012
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads3259134/1330.8 %+1/=6/−63118
Wasp 3.75 — 8 Threads3255154.5/1530.0 %+0/=9/−63108
Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads3185104/1040.0 %+3/=2/−53114
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads3170168/1650.0 %+2/=12/−23170
Naum 4.2 — 8 Threads3167168/1650.0 %+3/=10/−33167
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads30371613/1681.2 %+11/=4/−13291
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads29901612.5/1678.1 %+11/=3/−23211
Meilleur : 81 % vs Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit 8CPU · plus dur : 10 % vs Deep Shredder 13 x64 8CPU.

Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 3037 · 121 parties · 47.9 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo3037± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Critter 1.6a 64-bit — 8 Threads3259132/1315.4 %+0/=4/−92963
Senpai 2.0 — 8 Threads3185103/1030.0 %+1/=4/−53038
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads3170153.5/1523.3 %+1/=5/−92964
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread3154163/1618.8 %+1/=4/−112899
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread3000169/1656.2 %+4/=10/−23043
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads29901710.5/1761.8 %+6/=9/−23073
Loop M1-T — 8 Threads29141713.5/1779.4 %+11/=5/−13148
Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread28761713.5/1779.4 %+10/=7/−03110
Meilleur : 79 % vs Fruit 2.3.1 · plus dur : 15 % vs Critter 1.6a 64-bit 8CPU.

Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 3000 · 102 parties · 55.9 % · err ±20

Cote Ordo3000± 20
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads3170152.5/1516.7 %+0/=5/−102891
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads3037167/1643.8 %+2/=10/−42993
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads2990158/1553.3 %+5/=6/−43013
Loop M1-T — 8 Threads2914159.5/1563.3 %+5/=9/−13009
Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread28761610/1662.5 %+6/=8/−22964
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread28501914.5/1976.3 %+11/=7/−13053
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread275832.5/383.3 %+2/=1/−03038
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272733/3100.0 %+3/=0/−03527
Meilleur : 76 % vs Shredder 10 UCI · plus dur : 17 % vs Wasp 2.00 8CPU.

Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 2990 · 142 parties · 52.1 % · err ±17

Cote Ordo2990± 17
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads3170153.5/1523.3 %+0/=7/−82964
Komodo64 3 — 1 Thread3154163.5/1621.9 %+2/=3/−112933
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads3037176.5/1738.2 %+2/=9/−62953
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread3000157/1546.7 %+4/=6/−52976
Loop M1-T — 8 Threads2914199.5/1950.0 %+4/=11/−42914
Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread28762014.5/2072.5 %+11/=7/−23044
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread28502013.5/2067.5 %+9/=9/−22977
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread27582016/2080.0 %+14/=4/−22999
Meilleur : 80 % vs ProDeo 2.0 · plus dur : 22 % vs Komodo64 3.

Loop M1-T — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 2914 · 120 parties · 45.8 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo2914± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Wasp 2.00 — 8 Threads3170154/1526.7 %+1/=6/−82994
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads3037173.5/1720.6 %+1/=5/−112802
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread3000155.5/1536.7 %+1/=9/−52905
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads2990199.5/1950.0 %+4/=11/−42990
Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread2876179/1752.9 %+5/=8/−42896
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread28501911/1957.9 %+7/=8/−42906
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread27581812.5/1869.4 %+8/=9/−12901
Meilleur : 69 % vs ProDeo 2.0 · plus dur : 21 % vs Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit 8CPU.

Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2876 · 130 parties · 48.1 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo2876± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit — 8 Threads3037173.5/1720.6 %+0/=7/−102802
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread3000166/1637.5 %+2/=8/−62911
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads2990205.5/2027.5 %+2/=7/−112822
Loop M1-T — 8 Threads2914178/1747.1 %+4/=8/−52893
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread28502012/2060.0 %+9/=6/−52921
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread27582013/2065.0 %+10/=6/−42866
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads27272014.5/2072.5 %+10/=9/−12896
Meilleur : 72 % vs Deep Sjeng 1.6 8CPU · plus dur : 21 % vs Rybka 2.4 mp 32-bit 8CPU.

Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2850 · 222 parties · 57.0 % · err ±13

Cote Ordo2850± 13
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread3000194.5/1923.7 %+1/=7/−112796
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads2990206.5/2032.5 %+2/=9/−92863
Loop M1-T — 8 Threads2914198/1942.1 %+4/=8/−72859
Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread2876208/2040.0 %+5/=6/−92805
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread27583421/3461.8 %+12/=18/−42841
Deep Fritz — 1 Thread27321410/1471.4 %+9/=2/−32891
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads27272015/2075.0 %+13/=4/−32918
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread2721106.5/1065.0 %+4/=5/−12829
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread27203524.5/3570.0 %+19/=11/−52867
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684106/1060.0 %+4/=4/−22755
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread26712116.5/2178.6 %+13/=7/−12897
Meilleur : 79 % vs SOS 5 for Arena · plus dur : 24 % vs Gull 1.2 x64.

Shredder 6 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2799 · 60 parties · 56.7 % · err ±26

Cote Ordo2799± 26
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784155/1533.3 %+3/=4/−82664
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread27581510/1566.7 %+7/=6/−22879
Junior 8 — 1 Thread2742159.5/1563.3 %+6/=7/−22837
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread2720159.5/1563.3 %+7/=5/−32815
Meilleur : 67 % vs ProDeo 2.0 · plus dur : 33 % vs Deep Junior 7.

Fritz 8 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2788 · 90 parties · 62.8 % · err ±20

Cote Ordo2788± 20
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753158/1553.3 %+4/=8/−32776
Junior 8 — 1 Thread2742157/1546.7 %+4/=6/−52719
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread27201510/1566.7 %+6/=8/−12841
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread26711510.5/1570.0 %+9/=3/−32818
List 512 — 1 Thread2666159/1560.0 %+7/=4/−42736
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread26121512/1580.0 %+9/=6/−02853
Meilleur : 80 % vs Nimzo 8 · plus dur : 47 % vs Junior 8.

Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2784 · 163 parties · 59.8 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo2784± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Shredder 6 — 1 Thread27991510/1566.7 %+8/=4/−32919
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758147.5/1453.6 %+6/=3/−52783
Junior 8 — 1 Thread2742147/1450.0 %+5/=4/−52742
Deep Fritz — 1 Thread2732146.5/1446.4 %+5/=3/−62707
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272795/955.6 %+4/=2/−32766
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread2721106/1060.0 %+5/=2/−32792
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread2720159.5/1563.3 %+9/=1/−52815
Junior 7 — 1 Thread2700147/1450.0 %+4/=6/−42700
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684105/1050.0 %+3/=4/−32684
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread26712014.5/2072.5 %+11/=7/−22840
List 512 — 1 Thread2666149/1464.3 %+7/=4/−32768
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26561410.5/1475.0 %+9/=3/−22847
Meilleur : 75 % vs Fritz 6 · plus dur : 46 % vs Deep Fritz.

Fritz 7 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2772 · 90 parties · 60.6 % · err ±21

Cote Ordo2772± 21
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753127/1258.3 %+5/=4/−32811
Junior 8 — 1 Thread2742137/1353.8 %+4/=6/−32769
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread2720138/1361.5 %+4/=8/−12802
Junior 7 — 1 Thread2700138.5/1365.4 %+7/=3/−32811
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread26711310/1376.9 %+9/=2/−22880
List 512 — 1 Thread2666138/1361.5 %+7/=2/−42748
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread2612136/1346.2 %+3/=6/−42585
Meilleur : 77 % vs SOS 5 for Arena · plus dur : 46 % vs Nimzo 8.

ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2758 · 212 parties · 44.1 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo2758± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread300030.5/316.7 %+0/=1/−22720
Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 Threads2990204/2020.0 %+2/=4/−142749
Loop M1-T — 8 Threads2914185.5/1830.6 %+1/=9/−82771
Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread2876207/2035.0 %+4/=6/−102768
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread28503413/3438.2 %+4/=18/−122767
Shredder 6 — 1 Thread2799155/1533.3 %+2/=6/−72678
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784146.5/1446.4 %+5/=3/−62760
Deep Fritz — 1 Thread2732148/1457.1 %+7/=2/−52782
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread2721105.5/1055.0 %+5/=1/−42756
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread27201510/1566.7 %+8/=4/−32841
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684105.5/1055.0 %+5/=1/−42719
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread2671137.5/1357.7 %+6/=3/−42725
List 512 — 1 Thread2666137.5/1357.7 %+6/=3/−42720
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread2656138/1361.5 %+7/=2/−42738
Meilleur : 67 % vs Ruffian 2.1.0 · plus dur : 20 % vs Glaurung 2.2 JA 8CPU.

Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2753 · 103 parties · 56.8 % · err ±20

Cote Ordo2753± 20
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Fritz 8 — 1 Thread2788157/1546.7 %+3/=8/−42765
Fritz 7 — 1 Thread2772125/1241.7 %+3/=4/−52713
Deep Fritz — 1 Thread2732146.5/1446.4 %+3/=7/−42707
Junior 7 — 1 Thread2700127.5/1262.5 %+6/=3/−32789
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread2671138/1361.5 %+5/=6/−22753
List 512 — 1 Thread2666128/1266.7 %+6/=4/−22786
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread2656139.5/1373.1 %+7/=5/−12830
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread2612127/1258.3 %+5/=4/−32670
Meilleur : 73 % vs Fritz 6 · plus dur : 42 % vs Fritz 7.

Junior 8 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2742 · 138 parties · 55.1 % · err ±17

Cote Ordo2742± 17
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Shredder 6 — 1 Thread2799155.5/1536.7 %+2/=7/−62704
Fritz 8 — 1 Thread2788158/1553.3 %+5/=6/−42812
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784147/1450.0 %+5/=4/−52784
Fritz 7 — 1 Thread2772136/1346.2 %+3/=6/−42745
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread272195.5/961.1 %+4/=3/−22800
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread267194.5/950.0 %+4/=1/−42671
List 512 — 1 Thread266687/887.5 %+6/=2/−03004
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26562815/2853.6 %+10/=10/−82681
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread261296/966.7 %+5/=2/−22732
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread260096/966.7 %+5/=2/−22720
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread258995.5/961.1 %+4/=3/−22668
Meilleur : 54 % vs Fritz 6 · plus dur : 37 % vs Shredder 6.

Deep Fritz — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2732 · 70 parties · 44.3 % · err ±24

Cote Ordo2732± 24
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread2850144/1428.6 %+3/=2/−92691
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784147.5/1453.6 %+6/=3/−52809
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758146/1442.9 %+5/=2/−72708
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753147.5/1453.6 %+4/=7/−32778
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread2720146/1442.9 %+3/=6/−52670
Meilleur : 54 % vs Deep Junior 7 · plus dur : 29 % vs Shredder 10 UCI.

Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads

Cote Ordo 2727 · 118 parties · 50.0 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo2727± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Gull 1.2 x64 — 1 Thread300030/30.0 %+0/=0/−32200
Fruit 2.3.1 — 1 Thread2876205.5/2027.5 %+1/=9/−102707
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread2850205/2025.0 %+3/=4/−132659
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread278494/944.4 %+3/=2/−42746
Junior 7 — 1 Thread270094/944.4 %+3/=2/−42662
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread267110/10.0 %+0/=0/−11871
List 512 — 1 Thread266695.5/961.1 %+4/=3/−22745
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread265696/966.7 %+4/=4/−12777
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread261297/977.8 %+6/=2/−12830
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread260097/977.8 %+7/=0/−22817
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread2589108.5/1085.0 %+8/=1/−12891
Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread2570106.5/1065.0 %+6/=1/−32677
Meilleur : 85 % vs Fritz 5.32 · plus dur : 25 % vs Shredder 10 UCI.

Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2721 · 121 parties · 51.2 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo2721± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread2850103.5/1035.0 %+1/=5/−42743
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784104/1040.0 %+3/=2/−52714
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758104.5/1045.0 %+4/=1/−52723
Junior 8 — 1 Thread274293.5/938.9 %+2/=3/−42664
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread2720156.5/1543.3 %+4/=5/−62673
Junior 7 — 1 Thread270084/850.0 %+2/=4/−22700
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684106/1060.0 %+4/=4/−22755
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread2671106/1060.0 %+3/=6/−12742
List 512 — 1 Thread2666105/1050.0 %+3/=4/−32666
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26562919/2965.5 %+15/=8/−62768
Meilleur : 66 % vs Fritz 6 · plus dur : 35 % vs Shredder 10 UCI.

Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2720 · 186 parties · 45.2 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo2720± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread28503510.5/3530.0 %+5/=11/−192703
Shredder 6 — 1 Thread2799155.5/1536.7 %+3/=5/−72704
Fritz 8 — 1 Thread2788155/1533.3 %+1/=8/−62668
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784155.5/1536.7 %+5/=1/−92689
Fritz 7 — 1 Thread2772135/1338.5 %+1/=8/−42690
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758155/1533.3 %+3/=4/−82638
Deep Fritz — 1 Thread2732148/1457.1 %+5/=6/−32782
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread2721158.5/1556.7 %+6/=5/−42768
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684159.5/1563.3 %+7/=5/−32779
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26563421.5/3463.2 %+14/=15/−52750
Meilleur : 63 % vs Gandalf 6.01 · plus dur : 30 % vs Shredder 10 UCI.

Junior 7 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2700 · 189 parties · 56.1 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo2700± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784147/1450.0 %+4/=6/−42784
Fritz 7 — 1 Thread2772134.5/1334.6 %+3/=3/−72661
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753124.5/1237.5 %+3/=3/−62664
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272795/955.6 %+4/=2/−32766
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread272184/850.0 %+2/=4/−22721
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread267196/966.7 %+6/=0/−32792
List 512 — 1 Thread26661910.5/1955.3 %+7/=7/−52703
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread265694/944.4 %+3/=2/−42617
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread26122414/2458.3 %+13/=2/−92670
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread26002314/2360.9 %+10/=8/−52676
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread25892921.5/2974.1 %+19/=5/−52772
Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread25702011/2055.0 %+10/=2/−82605
Meilleur : 74 % vs Fritz 5.32 · plus dur : 35 % vs Fritz 7.

Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2684 · 85 parties · 44.1 % · err ±22

Cote Ordo2684± 22
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread2850104/1040.0 %+2/=4/−42780
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784105/1050.0 %+3/=4/−32784
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758104.5/1045.0 %+4/=1/−52723
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread2721104/1040.0 %+2/=4/−42651
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread2720155.5/1536.7 %+3/=5/−72625
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread2671104/1040.0 %+2/=4/−42601
List 512 — 1 Thread2666104.5/1045.0 %+3/=3/−42631
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread2656106/1060.0 %+5/=2/−32727
Meilleur : 60 % vs Fritz 6 · plus dur : 37 % vs Ruffian 2.1.0.

SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2671 · 193 parties · 41.5 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo2671± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Shredder 10 UCI — 1 Thread2850214.5/2121.4 %+1/=7/−132624
Fritz 8 — 1 Thread2788154.5/1530.0 %+3/=3/−92641
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784205.5/2027.5 %+2/=7/−112616
Fritz 7 — 1 Thread2772133/1323.1 %+2/=2/−92562
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758135.5/1342.3 %+4/=3/−62704
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753135/1338.5 %+2/=6/−52671
Junior 8 — 1 Thread274294.5/950.0 %+4/=1/−42742
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272711/1100.0 %+1/=0/−03527
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread2721104/1040.0 %+1/=6/−32651
Junior 7 — 1 Thread270093/933.3 %+3/=0/−62580
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684106/1060.0 %+4/=4/−22755
List 512 — 1 Thread26662011.5/2057.5 %+8/=7/−52719
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26563922/3956.4 %+12/=20/−72701
Meilleur : 60 % vs Gandalf 6.01 · plus dur : 21 % vs Shredder 10 UCI.

List 512 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2666 · 212 parties · 45.0 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo2666± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Fritz 8 — 1 Thread2788156/1540.0 %+4/=4/−72718
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784145/1435.7 %+3/=4/−72682
Fritz 7 — 1 Thread2772135/1338.5 %+4/=2/−72690
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758135.5/1342.3 %+4/=3/−62704
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753124/1233.3 %+2/=4/−62632
Junior 8 — 1 Thread274281/812.5 %+0/=2/−62404
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272793.5/938.9 %+2/=3/−42649
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread2721105/1050.0 %+3/=4/−32721
Junior 7 — 1 Thread2700198.5/1944.7 %+5/=7/−72664
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684105.5/1055.0 %+4/=3/−32719
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread2671208.5/2042.5 %+5/=7/−82619
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26562912.5/2943.1 %+7/=11/−112608
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread2612107/1070.0 %+6/=2/−22759
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread2600106.5/1065.0 %+5/=3/−22707
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread2589106.5/1065.0 %+4/=5/−12697
Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread2570105.5/1055.0 %+3/=5/−22605
Meilleur : 70 % vs Nimzo 8 · plus dur : 33 % vs Hiarcs 8.

Fritz 6 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2656 · 368 parties · 48.4 % · err ±10

Cote Ordo2656± 10
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Junior 7 — 1 Thread2784143.5/1425.0 %+2/=3/−92594
ProDeo 2.0 — 1 Thread2758135/1338.5 %+4/=2/−72676
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753133.5/1326.9 %+1/=5/−72579
Junior 8 — 1 Thread27422813/2846.4 %+8/=10/−102717
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272793/933.3 %+1/=4/−42607
Gambit Tiger 2.0 — 1 Thread27212910/2934.5 %+6/=8/−152610
Ruffian 2.1.0 — 1 Thread27203412.5/3436.8 %+5/=15/−142626
Junior 7 — 1 Thread270095/955.6 %+4/=2/−32739
Gandalf 6.01 — 1 Thread2684104/1040.0 %+3/=2/−52614
SOS 5 for Arena — 1 Thread26713917/3943.6 %+7/=20/−122626
List 512 — 1 Thread26662916.5/2956.9 %+11/=11/−72714
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread26123422.5/3466.2 %+15/=15/−42728
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread26003318/3354.5 %+13/=10/−102631
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread25895330.5/5357.5 %+17/=27/−92642
Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread25702114/2166.7 %+12/=4/−52690
Meilleur : 67 % vs Yace Paderborn · plus dur : 25 % vs Deep Junior 7.

Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2612 · 171 parties · 40.6 % · err ±15

Cote Ordo2612± 15
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Fritz 8 — 1 Thread2788153/1520.0 %+0/=6/−92548
Fritz 7 — 1 Thread2772137/1353.8 %+4/=6/−32798
Hiarcs 8 — 1 Thread2753125/1241.7 %+3/=4/−52694
Junior 8 — 1 Thread274293/933.3 %+2/=2/−52622
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272792/922.2 %+1/=2/−62510
Junior 7 — 1 Thread27002410/2441.7 %+9/=2/−132642
List 512 — 1 Thread2666103/1030.0 %+2/=2/−62519
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26563411.5/3433.8 %+4/=15/−152540
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread2600158.5/1556.7 %+6/=5/−42646
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread2589156/1540.0 %+3/=6/−62519
Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread25701510.5/1570.0 %+9/=3/−32717
Meilleur : 70 % vs Yace Paderborn · plus dur : 20 % vs Fritz 8.

Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2600 · 126 parties · 42.5 % · err ±18

Cote Ordo2600± 18
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Junior 8 — 1 Thread274293/933.3 %+2/=2/−52622
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads272792/922.2 %+2/=0/−72510
Junior 7 — 1 Thread2700239/2339.1 %+5/=8/−102624
List 512 — 1 Thread2666103.5/1035.0 %+2/=3/−52558
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26563315/3345.5 %+10/=10/−132625
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread2612156.5/1543.3 %+4/=5/−62565
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread2589147/1450.0 %+4/=6/−42589
Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread2570137.5/1357.7 %+4/=7/−22624
Meilleur : 58 % vs Yace Paderborn · plus dur : 35 % vs List 512.

Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2589 · 195 parties · 46.2 % · err ±14

Cote Ordo2589± 14
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Junior 8 — 1 Thread274293.5/938.9 %+2/=3/−42664
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads2727101.5/1015.0 %+1/=1/−82426
Junior 7 — 1 Thread2700297.5/2925.9 %+5/=5/−192517
List 512 — 1 Thread2666103.5/1035.0 %+1/=5/−42558
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread26565322.5/5342.5 %+9/=27/−172603
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread2612159/1560.0 %+6/=6/−32682
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread2600147/1450.0 %+4/=6/−42600
Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread25702111.5/2154.8 %+9/=5/−72603
Rebel 6.0 — 1 Thread24343424/3470.6 %+20/=8/−62587
Meilleur : 71 % vs Rebel 6.0 · plus dur : 15 % vs Deep Sjeng 1.6 8CPU.

Yace Paderborn — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2570 · 110 parties · 39.5 % · err ±19

Cote Ordo2570± 19
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Deep Sjeng 1.6 — 8 Threads2727103.5/1035.0 %+3/=1/−62620
Junior 7 — 1 Thread2700209/2045.0 %+8/=2/−102665
List 512 — 1 Thread2666104.5/1045.0 %+2/=5/−32631
Fritz 6 — 1 Thread2656217/2133.3 %+5/=4/−122536
Nimzo 8 — 1 Thread2612154.5/1530.0 %+3/=3/−92465
Hiarcs 7.32 — 1 Thread2600135.5/1342.3 %+2/=7/−42546
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread2589219.5/2145.2 %+7/=5/−92556
Meilleur : 45 % vs Fritz 5.32 · plus dur : 30 % vs Nimzo 8.

Rebel 6.0 — 1 Thread

Cote Ordo 2434 · 34 parties · 29.4 % · err ±31

Cote Ordo2434± 31
AdversaireCotePt.Score%W/D/LPerf
Fritz 5.32 — 1 Thread25893410/3429.4 %+6/=8/−202437
Meilleur : 29 % vs Fritz 5.32 · plus dur : 29 % vs Fritz 5.32.
Étalonnage — Alignement CCRL
Étalonnage · pontage liste → CCRL

Aligner le laboratoire sur l'échelle CCRL

Trois moteurs-ancres, étagés sur l'échelle, mesurés à pleine cadence sur le Ryzen 9 7950X3D contre des adversaires bridés pour reproduire leur force CCRL. Ces valeurs serviront de points d'ancrage fixes pour le réétalonnage global de la liste par Ordo.

Méthode. Le moteur cible joue à pleine cadence (15 s/coup) ; chaque ancre est bridée (~½ temps, 8 s/coup) pour rejouer sa force CCRL sur le Ryzen. Le bridage neutralise l'avantage de fréquence par cœur — seuls les threads supplémentaires par rapport à la référence CCRL produisent un gain.
Formule. perf = moyenne des ancres + 400 · log₁₀(p / (1−p))
Écart-type. σ = 400 · √(p(1−p) / N)  ·  (forme « table », colonne Err ±)

Deep Shredder 13 x64 — 8 threads

Cote CCRL 3327 (4CPU)  ·  cadence movetime 15 / 8 (DS13 15 s, ancres 8 s)  ·  100 parties  ·  couleurs 50/50

Adversaire (ancre) Cote CCRL Score % W / D / L Perf ind.
Caissa 1.1736013.5 / 2017,50 %+0 / =7 / −133332
Stockfish 1035226.5 / 2032,50 %+0 / =13 / −73395
Ethereal 12.7534549.5 / 2047,50 %+1 / =17 / −23437
Wasp 5.50332514.0 / 2070,00 %+9 / =10 / −13472
Gull 3322312.0 / 2060,00 %+4 / =16 / −03293
Totalmoy. 342545.5 / 10045,50 %+14 / =63 / −233394
Performance Elo 3394 ± 20 (table) · ± 9 (log)
Cohérence. Gain +67 sur la cote CCRL 4CPU, attribuable au doublement 4 → 8 threads (la fréquence par cœur étant neutralisée par le bridage temporel).

List 5.12 — 1 thread

Cote CCRL 2608  ·  cadence movetime 15 / 8 (List 15 s, ancres 8 s)  ·  92 parties  ·  couleurs 46/46  ·  pool sans Tao, avec Hermann

Adversaire (ancre) Cote CCRL Score % W / D / L Perf ind.
Toga II 1.2.1a27668.0 / 2040,00 %+5 / =6 / −92696
Spike 1.1269010.0 / 2050,00 %+6 / =8 / −62690
Ruffian 1.0.5259910.0 / 2050,00 %+6 / =8 / −62599
Hermann 2.8248722.0 / 3268,75 %+16 / =12 / −42624
Totalmoy. 2635,550.0 / 9254,35 %+33 / =34 / −252666
Performance Elo 2666 ± 21 (table) · ± 9 (log)
Cohérence. List mesuré à 2666 pour une cote CCRL de 2608, soit +58 au-dessus. En mono-thread (même nombre de threads que sa référence CCRL), il n'y a pas de bonus SMP ; l'écart de +58 tient au pool retenu sans Tao (avec Tao inclus, la perf revenait vers ~2610).
Note. List fait 50 % contre Ruffian (2599) et contre Spike (2690), deux ancres à 91 points d'écart — légère non-transitivité / bruit résiduel qui fixe le plancher de précision à ± 21. Hermann (perf 2624) est l'ancre la plus basse en perf après régression vers la moyenne (72,7 % à 11 parties → 68,75 % à 32) ; Tao 5.6, statistiquement non distinguable de Hermann (z = 0,64), a été écarté du pool retenu.

Glaurung 2.2 JA — 8 threads

Cote CCRL 2911 (4CPU)  ·  cadence movetime 15 / 8 (Glaurung 15 s, ancres 8 s)  ·  100 parties

Adversaire (ancre) Cote CCRL Score % W / D / L Perf ind.
Igel 2.3.130976.0 / 2030,00 %+0 / =12 / −82950
Deep Shredder 12304310.5 / 2052,50 %+6 / =9 / −53060
Wasp 2.0029469.0 / 2045,00 %+5 / =8 / −72911
Stockfish 1.4 JA284515.5 / 2077,50 %+12 / =7 / −13060
Lux 5.0281115.0 / 2075,00 %+11 / =8 / −13002
Totalmoy. 294856.0 / 10056,00 %+34 / =44 / −222990
Performance Elo 2990 ± 20 (table) · ± 9 (log)
Cohérence. Écart +79 sur la cote CCRL 4CPU, attribuable au doublement 4 → 8 threads (la fréquence par cœur étant neutralisée par le bridage temporel). À 20 parties par ancre le profil est homogène : Igel (perf 2950) et Wasp 2.00 (2911) alignés en bas, DS12 et Stockfish 1.4 en haut (3060) — plus aucun outlier de style.

Triplet d'ancrage CCRL

Points fixes pour le réétalonnage global de la liste par Ordo · formule maison · échelle couverte ≈ 730 points

Moteur Th. Cote CCRL Cote Ryzen 9 Écart CCRL Statut
Deep Shredder 13 x648T33273394 ± 20+67terminé
Glaurung 2.2 JA8T29112990 ± 20+79terminé
List 5.121T26082666 ± 21+58terminé
Lecture. Les écarts au référentiel CCRL sont propres à chaque moteur et ne suivent pas le nombre de threads. Aucun facteur uniforme ne s'applique : le réétalonnage passe par Ordo, en épinglant ces trois ancres à leur valeur CCRL mesurée pour redériver la liste sur le référentiel CCRL.