Of course I cannot leave without a synthesis: all in one graph!
A larger one to better zoom on the skills profiles:
There is a striking oddity in this graph, but I think it can be explained: not only the strategic skills did not step forward with the acceleration, as previously observed, but the graph displays a regression! The good strategic guidelines embedded in the Glasgow program weight higher with short thinking time; deeper calculations steer the score away because of tactical connsiderations, that is my opinion. Maybe strategic elements are mainly computed at root level?
Another small oddity lies in the calculations, where the fast IIIS performs less then the slow one; but otherwise the calculations scores look to range accordingly to expectations. The fast IIIS must have been on a wrong track with some position, there is of course some alea related to the current score at the time the thinking process is stopped.
Opening, middlegame, tactics, threat recognition and sacrifice progress rather evenly and significantly along with speed.
As already pointed out, defense skills were stuck without any significant progress, until the large acceleration provided by the Mephisto Phoenix. Counterattack is sort of similar, with unleashed power starting with the Revelation. And the Glasgow program kept brakes on attacking skills, but that is not uncommon with our dear chess computers (a bit passive, lacking any attacking plan and awaiting tactical opportunities).
Feel welcome to comment further!
I'll be back very soon with additional data to share, but enough for today.
MfG, Eric