Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Of the computer chess engines listed, which is the strongest?

Of the computer chess engines listed, which is the strongest?

  • Critter
  • Fritz
  • Hiarcs
  • Houdini
  • Junior
  • Naum
  • Rybka
  • Shredder
  • Stockfish

Created on February 27, 2011 | 5727 Votes | 68 Comments

Comments


  • 4 years ago

    selfmate

    @jim99. 

    It's not illegitimate or illegal for the Rybka programmers to use Fruit or Crafty in the writing of their program - that is what open source is all about. But it is in violation of the GPL (under which Fruit is released) for them to do so and then turn around and redistribute the software as closed source, proprietary and for-profit  software.

    Under the GPL, they have to issue their modified program at no charge ( a distribution fee is allowed though) and make available the modified source code also under the terms of the GPL.

  • 4 years ago

    jim995

    Houdini outstrips Rybka, and Fritz, though good enough for anyobdy's purposes (I have it) , really isn't that strong. It loses consistently to programs like Stockfish and Naum.

    Also, @herbanmusic   Even if that article is true, I don't believe it's not illegal or unligitimate since it says specifically in the article that Fruit 2.1 is public open source code

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

    HILARIOUS...

    Its turning Out that Vas( Rybka's authour) Is indeed a serial cloner...

    Its coming to light that he had previously COPIED A<D PASTED literally, parts of CRAFTY's code ( Versions between 16.0 and 19.0) into the initial versions of rybka...

    How hilarious is that ?!?

    I love when justice is done !!

  • 4 years ago

    AncientChess

    as everyone knows Houdini is the strongest, many have voted Rybka and Fritz because they are already famous.

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

    Its a close call but the TRS-80 comes first place ! I surrender !

  • 4 years ago

    basdirks

    Fritz outscoring Houdini.. yeah right

  • 4 years ago

    selfmate

    "There is an alternate version around that is supposed to return the real value that the engine is evaluating, as it seems Houdart was tryinng to use ways of hiding its evaluation a bit ( to avoid being "engineered reversed" kinda thing...Fair play to him if that was really the case), though only difference is in the evaluation value returned to the display( not his real evaluation, mind that!), and not in its play. so, its the same engine, still."

    Interesting. What is this version of Houdini called and where can I find it?

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

    Mind one thing: though Houdini is wiining all engines around at this moment, Houdart compromised quite a bit positionally (though most top engines have indeed improved a lot with the release of Fuit and subsequent engines disputes).

    It was probably the first time that a massive number of programmers joined forces against a commercial machine...and won !

    In my work doing an opening book specifically for black, noticed that in several positions where strategy is asked for, engines like Shredder 12, Hiarcs 13.2 ,Fritz 12 and even Junior are much better than Houdini, that returns really strange moves, even scoring them highly when he cant get more than a draw in the end ( Opening book analysis is mainly aimed for engines, though i ended up coming up with a lot of new ideas and perceptions of the positions that arise mainly from the Bronstein Larsen variation of the Caro Kan...i.e. : a lot of nice novelties eh eh ).

    So, i take the chance to confirm that the ECO B16's Bronstein Larsen variation / Caro Kan is alive and well, more than ever.100% sound defense as black. 

    But of course Houdini is much faster than most engines around( only Stockfish gets close to it, in that sense), and now even has Gaviota tablebases direct support.

    There is an alternate version around that is supposed to return the real value that the engine is evaluating, as it seems Houdart was tryinng to use ways of hiding its evaluation a bit ( to avoid being "engineered reversed" kinda thing...Fair play to him if that was really the case), though only difference is in the evaluation value returned to the display( not his real evaluation, mind that!), and not in its play. so, its the same engine, still.

  • 4 years ago

    AncientChess

    at the moment houdini is the strongest.

  • 4 years ago

    -Soltitude-

    Rybka voters probably doesnt know that it was already beaten by Houdini.

    Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_engine

    Houdini vs Rybka : http://blog.chess.com/qixel/rybka-amp-houdini-go-head-to-head

  • 4 years ago

    karthik418

    stockfish 2.0.1 is the strongest engine

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

     dajacca... Making excuses allready, in the eventuality of your trs losing? cant he take care of himself?!?!? lol eheh  Niceone.

    I was actually re-reading T. Harding's book on computer chess(still finishing it) and the TRS chess programs...Never used one though, i think (unless i dont remember) Spectrum was the THING  , when i was just a kid, also where i first programmed something ( a diary actually with password and all... though thge tape recording all the time was an hassle h eh eh )

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

     dajacca...Not so sure about the TRS-80...My ZX spectrum/timex 2048 will beat your trs-80 eh eh eh 

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

     yimin123 ... you use elostat for that? consider the fact that the starting rating influences it... for compuert engones ratings one should use an higher starting rating as most are stronger than humans anyway...so take that in consideration... lol


  • 4 years ago

    puppylover107

    I plung in Houdini engine inside arena and it shows only have elo rating of 2600

  • 4 years ago

    SaintPedronik

    uhhh, there have been tons and tons of games between the top chess engines. Houdini is the strongest. Period.

    P.S. This survey is pretty dumb b/c anyone who looks at a few rating list knows that Houdini is strongest. It is not a matter of opinion.

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

     mwyoung : doesnt look like...It is a "clone" ( though clone is the most used term, it is hard to be concise in this specific case, as Vas used a lot of Fruits code, but in a much more sophisticated way...which makes rybka a sphisticated "clone" ).

    The letter i posted here is signed by everyone whos anyone in the computer chess world.

    Just proving that lies dont last long !

  • 4 years ago

    ace45954

    The only reason why fritz has any votes is because it is famous, in fact there are many extremely strong engines not listed such as, Komodo, Protector, and Hannibal, all of which have an estimated ELO above 2900.

  • 4 years ago

    mwyoung

    Looks like Rybka is a clone. This could be the end of Rybka playing in any computer chess tournaments, Rybka could now be Banned if this is found to be true. No more Computer Chess World Championships.

    And Houdini is listed on most computer chess rating lists. IPON, CCRL, CEGT...

  • 4 years ago

    herbanmusic

    Top Programmers Open Letter to ICGA on Rybka/Fruit
    Quote:
    This has appeared elsewhere, and I copy it here:

    Open letter to the ICGA about the Rybka-Fruit issue

    Dear David Levy, Jaap van den Herik and the ICGA Board,

    Recently the author of Fruit, Fabien Letouzey, wrote an open letter to the computer chess community where he raised the concern that Rybka 1.0 beta may be a derivative of Fruit 2.1 in this public post: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37762

    Since then it has emerged from highly respected sources like Zach Wegner, Bob Hyatt and others that there is a lot of evidence that has been accumulated over the last few years that Rybka 1.0 beta is a derivative of Fruit 2.1.

    Zach Wegner has presented evidence of alleged significant copied/derived Fruit evaluations in Rybka 1.0 beta here:https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html

    A collection of evidence of the many cases of alleged copied/derived Fruit structure, code & data appearing in Rybka 1.0 beta has been put together in this PDF by Mark Watkins: download/file.php?id=304

    It is also worth considering that prior to Rybka 1.0 beta, previous Rybka versions were many hundreds of Elo points weaker than the Rybka 1.0 beta version that suddenly emerged in public in December 2005, just a few months after the open source public release of Fruit 2.1 under the GPL license. That same month Rybka beta entered and won the International Paderborn Computer Chess tournament.

    The evidence alleges that by using and deriving code, data and structure from Fruit 2.1, Vasik Rajlich was able to make dramatic and huge progress with "his" program Rybka to the detriment of his fellow competitors. In our view this has made competitions involving Rybka grossly unfair.

    As chess programmers we find this overwhelming evidence compelling. We believe Rybka is a Fruit derivative albeit an advanced one.

    It is very likely that later Rybka versions have derived and benefited from Rybka 1.0 beta and hence in the circumstances our view is they should also be considered derivatives of Fruit 2.1 until proven otherwise.

    We wish to make an official complaint to the ICGA that Rybka is a Fruit 2.1 derivative. Furthermore we believe it is a breach of the GPL license under which Fruit 2.1 was released.

    We believe as an unauthorized Fruit derivative Rybka's entry into ICGA events has been contrary to the ICGA rules and the rules of fair play.

    We ask the ICGA to carefully review the evidence, assess its validity, and act accordingly.


    We note that the ICGA is intending on setting up a tribunal to assess such allegations and we believe this evidence should be strongly considered in that process.

    In addition, we think the ICGA should in future insist that all authors of entries to ICGA events must submit to the ICGA the same executable(s), that is taking part in the ICGA event, where they can be stored for future analysis of potential derivative claims should they arise. Each author should also make a full and clear statement as to the originality of the entry, its contributors and any acknowledgements. Should justified suspicions exist authors must be willing to submit source code on a private and confidential basis to a select group of impartial programmers to privately determine source code origin.

    Co-signed by the following chess programmers,
    Fabien Letouzey
    Zach Wegner
    Mark Uniacke
    Stefan Meyer-Kahlen
    Ed Schröder
    Don Dailey
    Christophe Theron
    Richard Pijl
    Amir Ban
    Anthony Cozzie
    Tord Romstad
    Ralf Schäfer
    Gerd Isenberg
    Johannes Zwanzger
Back to Top

Post your reply: