http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/
Chess Engines - Who's on Top?
Sort:
Jun 25, 2013
0
#2
Nice list Laurent. Also found
Houdini is the best, Rybka and Critter ara close to each other; on the short run Critter is slightly better but on the long run they are equal, maybe Rybka is even slightly better. Stockfish is very useful in middlegame and tactical positions but since it does not use tablebases it has a disadvantage against others in the endgame.
2) Position Evaluation
Here again the most realistic evaluation comes from Houdini, followed by Critter; Rybka and Stockfish. The best ranking for non-tactical evaluation is in the above order. For tactical positions and especially for middlegame combinations I suggest Stockfish.
3) The speed of anlysis
The speed in anlyses is as follows: Stockfish, Houdini, Critter and Rybka.
4) The ability to descend to depth
Again in proportion with the speed of analysis Stockfish is leading with Houdini, Critter and Rybka following. Although Rybka is the slowest engine in the speed of analysis it's ability to descend to depth is close to Critter. Here I want to express that stength of anlysis depth is not equal in all engines. Rybka's 30 depth anlysis is close to Stockfish's 40 analysis depth.
5) Does the engine get in to an infinite loop?
Houdini enters infinite loops very often. The others except Stockfish also enter infinite loops. But it seems that Houdini enters an infinite loop every time there is an unconcluded anlysis.
Jun 27, 2013
0
#4
I don't know who wrote all of this and what their expertise is. Anyway, in 99% of positions, you won't see much difference between all these engines (except maybe Stockfish's evaluation is a little bit over the top...)
And be careful not to drawn in engine's world if your objective is to play chess 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Komodo 5.1 Multiprocessor is possible the true candidate to replace either Critter or Rybka at present time.
1 core vs 4 is indeed huge handicap in engine matches.
|
1 |
Houdini 3 64-bit 4CPU | 3249 | +16 | −16 | 70.4% | −131.7 | 43.6% | 1249 | |
|
100.0%
|
|||||||||
| 2 | Stockfish 3 64-bit 4CPU | 3174 | +26 | −26 | 58.7% | −50.0 | 56.6% | 415 | |
|
55.6%
|
|||||||||
| 3 | Critter 1.6a 64-bit 4CPU | 3172 | +14 | −14 | 58.7% | −53.0 | 58.3% | 1576 | |
|
78.0%
|
|||||||||
| 4 | Rybka 4 64-bit 4CPU | 3164 | +14 | −14 | 60.7% | −70.3 | 49.0% | 1577 | |
|
97.6%
|
|||||||||
| 5 | Komodo CCT 64-bit | 3142 | +14 | −14 | 58.0% | −47.9 | 54.3% | 1616 | |
|
51.9%
|
Always good to hear from Clint Eastwood.
Yes Laurent, good advice. 8 months ago I wrote my latest novel and implied in there that Houdini was the best in the world. Just wanted to have an update today on which is still #1. So a rating of 3300 is very close. I'm still reading books mostly to improve.
Latest dev versions of stockfish is chasing houdini 3.
deleted
Do you not care who is the world champion? Human and/or machine?
So it is settled, Houdini is #1 and Stockfish is a close 2nd.
Jun 30, 2013
0
#11
I see computer chess as a software algorithm comparison, not a game. There are many variables that need to be kept constant for a fair comparison of engines: CPU speed, CPU version and manufacturer, RAM size and transfer speed, GPU involvement and those parameters for off-loading, front side bus and/or equivalent speed, number of cores being used, hyperthreading use and/or efficiency, search depth, search time limits, databases available, endtables available ... the list goes on. Very seldom are hardware platforms equal. If you watch computer engine contests, you'll seldom see any one engine beat all other engines 100% of the time, and the differences are insignificant to human players below GM strength in terms of their value in training.
My point is that unless you like to sit around and watch your computer crunch numbers, a chess engine is only as good as the use to which it is put in helping players gain proficiency. No argument if that's what you like.
Few games but Stockfish vs Komodo MP is close to equal, favouring KM by an slight degree.
| Rank | Name | Rating | Score | Average Opponent |
Draws | Games | LOS | ||
| Elo | + | − | |||||||
| 1 | Houdini 3 64-bit 4CPU | 3316 | +16 | −16 | 79.6% | −222.8 | 30.0% | 1694 | |
|
100.0%
|
|||||||||
| 2 | Komodo 5.1 MP 64-bit 4CPU | 3241 | +28 | −28 | 62.1% | −84.6 | 47.2% | 398 | |
|
85.6%
|
|||||||||
| 3 | Critter 1.6a 64-bit 4CPU | 3221 | +15 | −15 | 66.8% | −115.5 | 42.6% | 1499 | |
|
78.1%
|
|||||||||
| 4 | Stockfish 2.3.1 64-bit 4CPU | 3213 | +18 | −18 | 59.5% | −60.4 | 46.9% | 951 | |
|
85.9%
|
|||||||||
waste time comparing pc's or play and improve+observe, i'd rather play.
Leevez wrote:
waste time comparing pc's or play and improve+observe, i'd rather play.
I know people who think playing chess is a waste of time.
Whatever floats your boat. If you like "comparing PCs," there's nothing wrong with that.
Let me try this again; who's not on top. Who's on 1st, what's on 2nd. 3rd base? I don't know.
Houdini 4 is VERY high and #1 right now:
stinken picture won't show
I thought Houdini, perhaps Houdini III was the best chess engine. Now I hear about Rybka IV. Is Rybka IV now the best? Rated what? Anything out there rated 3100?