Chess Engines - Who's on Top?
Nice list Laurent. Also found
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
Does it really matter if your rating is below 3000?
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.
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.
lol
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?