Stockfish 5 and Houdini

If Stockfish 5 turns out to have a higher rating than Houdini will the chess community just instantly switch over to it for analysis?

Or is there something else beyond the rating that people like about Houdini that makes it the number one choice for analysis?

People who pay $ for chess software (specifically, computer engines) will probably keep using their commercial engine of choice. Most die-hard enthusiasts probably figured out that Houdini is not worth the money, especially given the recent rise of SF. So, I believe most chess players are using Stockfish DD/5 already (...or some other free program; many strong ones around - a patzer is unlikely to notice any difference between Critter and Stockfish).

On my machine (4 threads), the latest 64-bit SSE 4.2 compilation of SF 5 reaches 5000 kN/s easily. I am impressed.

Kilonodes mean nothing- at all.

All three top engines have their own strong points: Stockfish is fantastic in tactical play, Houdini excels at fast time controls, and Komodo plays the endgame much better than the competition. So, it really depends on your needs.

The average Joe would surely be 100% satisfied with Stockfish, no need to look further.

houdini will improve soon 

Didn't even know Stockfish 5 was out

They released it the day after Stockfish beat Komodo +13 -6 =45 in the TCEC championship (Houdini was 3rd, just like last year).

Stockfish did crush all oponents in the latest TCEC

Stock fish is good

Its rating is what, 3168?

Stockfish 5

Stockfish is also very good engine

Stockfish's analysis in normal games is brilliant, but it couldn't find correct moves in hard chess puzzles, I don't know why. Still, it doesn't make Stockfish a bad engine for analysis.

Stockfish is somtimes poor in endgame.

Not true.

Komodo is probably still the strongest in endgames, but Stockfish plays endgames way better than Houdini. Actually this is not such a difficult task- Houdini most of the times gives completely bogus evaluations on endgames. Most of my wins in engine-assisted correspondence chess (LSS) were in balanced endgames, where my opponents trusted Houdini- and lost.

I'm afraid I will have to change strategy now, since Stockfish and Komodo are not THAT bad in endgame play.

Could you please post such an endgame? I'm quite curious what it looks like.

Sure, why not. Here is just one example, out of plenty:

My opponent trusted Houdini's evaluation, and resigned. The final position is a draw.

pfren wrote:

Kilonodes mean nothing- at all.

All three top engines have their own strong points: Stockfish is fantastic in tactical play, Houdini excels at fast time controls, and Komodo plays the endgame much better than the competition. So, it really depends on your needs.

The average Joe would surely be 100% satisfied with Stockfish, no need to look further.

Stockfish is worse than Houdini in tactics, because of very strong pruning.

It's true that Stockfish relies on a lot of pruning, but I don't think it's fair to doubt its tactical ability. Look at the games it played against Houdini in the TCEC - given enough time, Stockfish can find absolutely mindblowing tactics.

All engines use move pruning, and even programmers cannot say the optimal settings. Playing practice does, though- and judging from the Stockfish results at TCEC, it's superbly tuned. Comments like "Stockfish is worse than Houdini in tactics, because of very strong pruning" show authenticity about... errr, what, really? My guess is nothing. Even the typical problem test sets have very little value compared to real, practical OTB play.

1 month ago houdini 4 was best chess engine in the world.But After install Stockfish 5 i understand that now it is the best.Houdini 4 could not manage to win with it.And in Stocfish 5 vs Houdini 4 match is always end with a win of Stockfish 5 or a draw.
Now Stockfish 5 is the most strongest engine in the world :)