Chess Engines - Who's on Top?

Glorfindel_1

there we go

EscherehcsE

The latest dev version of Stockfish is doing a bit better than version DD. And the arms race continues...

Glorfindel_1

yep, this was taken on feb. 24, 2014 so it's pretty up to date...

DILIBRO

Komodo is a scary logo lizard

Stockfish smelly

Houdini is no.1

EscherehcsE

Here's a new engine - Senpai 1.0. It's not as strong as the top engines, but it has great potential. It's by Fabien Letouzey, the programmer of Fruit.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=51637

DILIBRO

the answer is

 http://tcec.chessdom.com/live.php

EscherehcsE
DILIBRO wrote:

No, I don't think that's "the answer", because it's not statistically significant due to the small number of games for three engines that are almost equal in ratings. It might be fun to watch, and it might give the winner bragging rights, but that's all it is.

mcris

Stockfish is a pun Foot in Mouth for Rybka (small fish) and proved better. 

Mario0nly2

Ok guys, you might want to read this:

Komodo 8 is a chess program that is different from the rest. Its search makes greater use of extensions than any other top engine, which allows Komodo to often see deeper than the others, even if it is displaying a slightly lower search depth. The evaluation differs from its main rivals because it represents a blend of both automated tuning and the judgment of a grandmaster and computer expert (Larry Kaufman). Fully automated evaluations are subject to rather large sample error, and applying some chess judgment is beneficial, both in results and in the reasonableness of reported evaluations.
Komodo is primarily known for superb positional play. Of course it is also one of the the top few engines in tactical strength, but the programmers have not been willing to sacrifice positional play just to score better on tactical problem sets. All good engines are far stronger tactically than any human player, but when positional judgment is involved, top grandmasters are still superior. Therefore it makes sense to emphasize positional play rather than tactical skill; it is better to improve one's weakest point rather than just to further improve the strongest feature.
Komodo is especially useful for opening analysis, because its grandmaster programmer has always made sure that the program's evaluations agree in general with accepted theory. Komodo also excels in the evaluation of positions with material imbalance, which it handles more correctly than other top engines. The endgame of Komodo has been improved by the use of Syzygy tablebases, which provide only the most essential information to save time and memory.
Another unique feature of Komodo is its superior performance when using eight or more cores. There is little doubt that Komodo 8 will be the top rated commercial chess engine on most rating lists.

Includes:

  • Komodo 8 engine can support up to 64 processor cores and 16 GB of hash memory
  • The new Deep Fritz 64-bit program interface (+ 32 bit program interface)
  • Online access to the world’s largest analysis database “Let’s Check”, with over 200 million extensively analyzed positions**
  • Access to ChessBase engine cloud
  • Premium membership to Playchess.com (6 months)
  • Database with over 1.5 million games etc.
Glorfindel_1

Reads like an advertizement

EscherehcsE
Glorfindel_1 wrote:

Reads like an advertizement

Probably because it IS a Chessbase advertisement.

Mario0nly2

If you don't believe in the advertisement, then why do you bother bying the software? (Not all advertisements are a catch to make you bye stuff) My advice is: Read as many advertisements from all kinds of chess engines as possible and compare their cons and pros to get the most of your money's worth. I read a lot of those, and found Komodo 8 to be the most promising. But then, that's just my oppinion; you might have a different one. :)

Glorfindel_1

Yes, but I don't expect to see advertisements being posted on a forum.

(Houdini is the best BTW :D)

TBentley
Mario0nly2 wrote:

There is little doubt that Komodo 8 will be the top rated commercial chess engine on most rating lists.

How cleverly they include the word "commercial".

xJaeger
[COMMENT DELETED]
xJaeger
Master_Po wrote:

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. 

Comparing humans to machines is just silly. Just go back to Kasparov vs Deep Blue. Humans could easily beat machine if they had the lack of exhaustion and time frame. The only thing machines are better at is finding retained information quicker, hence the time frame. Why would it matter which engine has a higher elo? Are you interested in watching comp vs comp world championships? Sounds a bit dull. Comparing engines doesn't have an inch on comparing real chess players if you ask me. Anyone can create quick algorythms, it takes true skill to outsmart an opponent with the same handi-caps. Using them to study certain move scenarios could be one thing, but let's be real; this is like ibm trying to say that human intellect comes second to machine, when in fact machines do not have intellect, they just crunch numbers.

Master_Po

Spoken by a patzer with no imagination.

pranay_p
Stockfish Dev is the best, with Houdini 5 Dev(Yet to be released) and Komodo 10.1 close seconds.
Batman1357

Stockfish 9!

forked_again
xJaeger wrote:
Master_Po wrote:

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. 

Comparing humans to machines is just silly. Just go back to Kasparov vs Deep Blue. Humans could easily beat machine if they had the lack of exhaustion and time frame. The only thing machines are better at is finding retained information quicker, hence the time frame. Why would it matter which engine has a higher elo? Are you interested in watching comp vs comp world championships? Sounds a bit dull. Comparing engines doesn't have an inch on comparing real chess players if you ask me. Anyone can create quick algorythms, it takes true skill to outsmart an opponent with the same handi-caps. Using them to study certain move scenarios could be one thing, but let's be real; this is like ibm trying to say that human intellect comes second to machine, when in fact machines do not have intellect, they just crunch numbers.

WTF?