No, Komodo 9 is stronger than Stockfish 6 as proved in the Thoresen Chess Engines Competition. After a series of matches in the superfinal, Komodo managed to beat Stockfish, but only by a little.
Btw, the time control was 120 | 30
Is stockfish 6 stronger than komodo 9?
Sort:
Both engines are very strong. Their actual performance is dependent on the time control. On very long time controls (official correspondence) I prefer Stockfish, but usually I consult both engines- and in few cases a special Stockfish compile, DeepFish, which has pruning disabled.
For the record, the current version of Komodo is 9.3, and Stockfish 7 beta 1 is also public (and what I'm using right now).
Dec 31, 2015
0
#4
pfren wrote:
Both engines are very strong. Their actual performance is dependent on the time control. On very long time controls (official correspondence) I prefer Stockfish, but usually I consult both engines- and in few cases a special Stockfish compile, DeepFish, which has pruning disabled.
For the record, the current version of Komodo is 9.3, and Stockfish 7 beta 1 is also public (and what I'm using right now).
Is Deepfish publicly available, and if so, where can we get it?
EscherehcsE wrote:
Is Deepfish publicly available, and if so, where can we get it?
Right from the blog of the compiler, Marco Zerbinatti- here
The binary is useful mainly for studies and problems, but in few cases it's also useful for positions where you suspect the existence of a fortress, and "regular" engines are printing nonsense on the screen.
In regular positions, it's just... very slow.
Dec 31, 2015
0
#6
pfren wrote:
EscherehcsE wrote:
Is Deepfish publicly available, and if so, where can we get it?
Right from the blog of the compiler, Marco Zerbinatti- here
The binary is useful mainly for studies and problems, but in few cases it's also useful for positions where you suspect the existence of a fortress, and "regular" engines are printing nonsense on the screen.
In regular positions, it's just... very slow.
Thanks pfren, appreciate the link.
The reason why komodo 9 is on top is because of the way it plays compared to other computers. It can play c4, d4 as well as e4 well, which gives it an advantage over other engines. It also values evaluation more than depth, which can confuse the engines. If you use stockfish, you'll see that it always recommends e4, based on depth.Stockfish is strong, but komodo is better.
thanks for the reply's. I'am currently using komodo 9.3 right now to analyze my games.
Jan 1, 2016
0
#9
pfren wrote:
Both engines are very strong. Their actual performance is dependent on the time control. On very long time controls (official correspondence) I prefer Stockfish, but usually I consult both engines- and in few cases a special Stockfish compile, DeepFish, which has pruning disabled.
For the record, the current version of Komodo is 9.3, and Stockfish 7 beta 1 is also public (and what I'm using right now).
Very interesting idea. I don't know why people hadn't tried this as a supplement sooner... or maybe they had.
Jan 1, 2016
0
#10
Real_CS wrote:
The reason why komodo 9 is on top is because of the way it plays compared to other computers. It can play c4, d4 as well as e4 well, which gives it an advantage over other engines.
There's this thing called opening books. The engines typically don't play the first 12 or so moves.
0110001101101000 wrote:
Real_CS wrote:
The reason why komodo 9 is on top is because of the way it plays compared to other computers. It can play c4, d4 as well as e4 well, which gives it an advantage over other engines.
There's this thing called opening books. The engines typically don't play the first 12 or so moves.
No no, I don't think you understand, Stockfish lacks an opening book, and the first few moves of stockfish are based on depth only, unlike Komodo, which has a book, allowing it to play c4, d4 and Nf3 better.
Real_CS wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Real_CS wrote:
The reason why komodo 9 is on top is because of the way it plays compared to other computers. It can play c4, d4 as well as e4 well, which gives it an advantage over other engines.
There's this thing called opening books. The engines typically don't play the first 12 or so moves.
No no, I don't think you understand, Stockfish lacks an opening book, and the first few moves of stockfish are based on depth only, unlike Komodo, which has a book, allowing it to play c4, d4 and Nf3 better.
Nobody who is sane cares about the "first moves" of any engine.
Opening books are on the agenda ONLY for Engine vs. Engine games. Other than that, they are completely useless.
The "first moves" in any sound opening are very well-known: Just open a database, and see what the top guns are playing.
check out my post about Stockfish 7 vs Komodo 9.3 here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/komodo-9-3-vs-stockfish-7
Stockfish 6 and 9 are both about a year old. They are approximately equal in strength. The current official versions are Stockfish 7 and Komodo 9.3.
Most people probably don't even use Komodo's provided opening book. Sugar is a customizable version of Stockfish, done by the same author as DeepFish.
It's a fallacy that Stockfish will play the same opening again and again without a book. It depends on time control, cores, speed and a little bit of luck.
Hashtable Size: 1024mb (per engine)
Permanent Brain: Enabled
Time controls: 15:00|Classic
Here take a look.
I disabled the Resign usage, so both engines cant resign.
In the next match
Hashtable Size: 1024mb (per engine)
Permanent Brain: Enabled
Time controls: 5:00|Blitz
I also tried this
Hashtable Size: 1024mb (per engine)
Permanent Brain: Enabled
Time controls: 2|1 Bullet
I'am using Shredder Classic 4