We know each other because of chess, really appreciate your test and accurate report, thank you very much. I wish you a happy life. If you have the opportunity to come to China, please contact me. We will also continue to improve products, make more and better products, and let technology truly serve our lives.
Warm regards,
Samson from Vonset
Tibono2 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 12, 2023 3:30 pmHi Keith, hi all
here you are with the Khmelnitsky test outcome!
I had to cancel the first run of the test after reaching 85% done: I already had a growing concern with the temporary results that looked way below my expectation (with regards to the high playing strength), and finally got evidences the displayed score is often not self-sufficient to assess a position. It looks to only "scratch the surface". Nevertheless, once few moves are actually played starting from a given position, the score converges towards relevant values, and gives a balanced evaluation of the initial position.
As the Khmelnitsky test leverages not only best move identification, but also questions the side having an edge or maybe winning, I had to find a workaround.
The key point is the blazing fast response time of the L6-v2. I now have played many games, I could only notice a couple of them with L6-v2 at level 22 (max) using one or two seconds for the whole game, according to the time display! Other games did not report a single whole second spent.
Other chess computers running the Khmelnitsky test are granted three minutes thinking time per position - therefore I considered fair enough to have the L6-v2 carry on several moves in a row (using in turn the hint feature then the usual computer move) in order to reveal sort of the principal variation and take note of the displayed scores. Usually 4 to 5 moves are enough to get a stabilized score (best is to reach a "quiescence position"). This process only costs around half a minute operator time, and the computing time used by the L6-v2 remains barely noticeable.
OK, the L6-v2 is not an analysis tool (as already stated about the L6-v1), anyway let's focus on the results now:
It achieved 1954 KT-Elo, which is close to the score achieved by the Fidelity 2265 Designer Mach III (1974).
According to the calibration graph I previously shared (p.4 within this thread), this reveals a potential strength above 2100 "computer Elo".
Here is the graph:
link (if not displayed above)
Comparison to the L6-v1:
link
Comparison to the Designer MIII:
link
Comparison to an average 1954 Elo human player:
link
It is a strong counterattacker, manages the opening fairly well, and rather unusually has good skills for strategy, even better than the average player has. Not a great attacher though, and a bit weak in tactics and sacrifice. The low spot in tactics of course relates to the extremely short thinking time used.
I am still running tournaments in order to evaluate the computer Elo thru real games, so far the L6-v2 appears to deserve the rough estimate over 2300/2350 mark. Maybe even more. New blitz monster?
Tibono
I