So I figured out the flaw in my scoring system. Because it uses the length of the game as part of the calculation, an engine that manages to get early draws (perhaps by threefold repetition) can game the system and get a higher score.
So I modified the system so that drawn games result in no score for either side. Also, computer chess often has arbitrated decisions to avoid tiresome endgames, which results in abnormally-shorter games, further complicating the concept of using game length as a determinant.
So the revised scoring for the semifinal was:
Raubfisch X41d3._sl : 4.71
Stockfish 11 : 0.9
Zeus 4.1.7 M : 0
Raubfisch_ME262_GTZ20d3._sl : -5.01
This does show a rather dramatic difference between the two Raubfisch variants, as well as between winner and second place. So I ran the final between the top two above, 10 games, time control 30 minutes plus 30 seconds a move.
The results were disappointing, of the 10 games, 9 were drawn, and those that I saw were rather boring, so I’m not going to post them. I will post the only one which had a result, and that was a mate as well. So Raubfisch X41d3._sl is crowned the winner with a score of 5.5 to 4.5 by conventional scoring.
My scoring was
Raubfisch X41d3._sl : 2.09
Stockfish 11 : -2.26
and the points system awarded
Engine Points Percentage
Raubfisch X41d3._sl : 274 : 54.8
Stockfish 11 : 224 : 44.8
The SuperFinals at TCEC usually have a lot more games, because most of them are drawn, which is very tedious.
Herewith the winning game. Stockfish was outplayed somewhere in the middle. The trapped bishop around move 48 led to disastrous loss of material.