Playing Styles of Chess Engines

[Lanzo]

Interestingly, every chess engine is known to have it's own unique style or slightly similar to the rest. What are the playing styles of some popular chess engines such as Stockfish, Komodo, Texel, Houdini and Gull?

In my opinion, Houdini 4 is a highly positional player. But once you turn Tactical Mode on, it transforms into more of a tactical player and by changing "Contempt" to 2, it simply becomes an aggressive-minded tactical player. It is a joy to watch.

Stockfish seems to have an all-round style.

Komodo is 50/50 - it's a great positional player, and also a great tactical player.

[kranium]

Hi Lanzo-

Take a look at Frank Quisinsky's excellent site...he's been doing engine testing and play analysis since the very beginning.
He's very knowledgeable and and has great insight into engine playing styles.

He spends a lot of time mining positional statistics from his large game database, and even has a whole page devoted to "Playing styles"...

http://www.amateurschach.de/

Norm

[reflectionofpower]

Hi Lanzo-

Take a look at Frank Quisinsky's excellent site...he's been doing engine testing and play analysis since the very beginning.
He's very knowledgeable and and has great insight into engine playing styles.

He spends a lot of time mining positional statistics from his large game database, and even has a whole page devoted to "Playing styles"...

http://www.amateurschach.de/

Norm

http://www.amateurschach.de/main/_playing-style.htm

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Lonnie, Norman,

I overworked the playing style file for minutes. From time to time I am looking here ... must made changes for Rodent during the still running test-run.

What I need (a little wish) is that an English native speaker helps for corrections. This file should no have bigger spelling mistakes.

Maybe an English native speaker have time for helps and overworked my file.

Short hint:
My playing style discription should be view in combination with the stats to middlegame / transposition into endgame and endgame. This stats I have for FCT1 on my site. After my FCT0 tourney the same stats will be available for my TOP-21. At the moment I produced a lot of construction zones. Better I make my own chaos a little bit bigger.

An other construction zone is my opening book. Here I am working hard to make the book stronger.

At the moment I overworked lines, engines produced to fast draw games up to move 20. 218 short draw games up to move 20 are produced and 175 of this lines are overworked so far.

69.100 45-minutes games on i7 4.3Ghz without ponder.
218 x 100 : 69.100 played games = 0.315%
To much ...

I am sure that after my latest changes I produced now a better quote!

Information about the book changes I do can be found in "Work" file, included in my download file. My FCP-Live-Book is available for Shredder Classic GUI in *.bkt format only.

Enough chess for today!
My book made me in the latest weeks really confuzius!

Best
Frank

[Henk]

I have a book "Development of Chess Style" written by Max Euwe. It describes playing style of many old grand masters. Illustrated with their best games. Maybe you could write something similar for chess engines.

Perhaps it would be interesting to illustrate the playing style of each chess engine with one of their best games.

[For fun perhaps one should also add the best chess games of the chess engine authors to see if there is a correlation between playing style of author and engine.]

[zullil]

Interestingly, every chess engine is known to have it's own unique style or slightly similar to the rest. What are the playing styles of some popular chess engines such as Stockfish, Komodo, Texel, Houdini and Gull?

In my opinion, Houdini 4 is a highly positional player. But once you turn Tactical Mode on, it transforms into more of a tactical player and by changing "Contempt" to 2, it simply becomes an aggressive-minded tactical player. It is a joy to watch.

Stockfish seems to have an all-round style.

Komodo is 50/50 - it's a great positional player, and also a great tactical player.

Taipan sounded very interesting, but it was discovered to be just Stockfish, with a few changes made by its creator (aka, Mr. Dull Propeller):

Taipan is an immensely robust chess engine that is written to give precise chess analysis and of course, play strong chess. Furthermore, It's elo is estimated to be around 3300-3400! It would be safe to say that it's much stronger than any human grandmaster in history! The name of this chess engine is derived from the most venomous snake in the world, Taipan.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Interestingly, every chess engine is known to have it's own unique style or slightly similar to the rest. What are the playing styles of some popular chess engines such as Stockfish, Komodo, Texel, Houdini and Gull?

In my opinion, Houdini 4 is a highly positional player. But once you turn Tactical Mode on, it transforms into more of a tactical player and by changing "Contempt" to 2, it simply becomes an aggressive-minded tactical player. It is a joy to watch.

Stockfish seems to have an all-round style.

Komodo is 50/50 - it's a great positional player, and also a great tactical player.

Taipan sounded very interesting, but it was discovered to be just Stockfish, with a few changes made by its creator (aka, Mr. Dull Propeller):

Taipan is an immensely robust chess engine that is written to give precise chess analysis and of course, play strong chess. Furthermore, It's elo is estimated to be around 3300-3400! It would be safe to say that it's much stronger than any human grandmaster in history! The name of this chess engine is derived from the most venomous snake in the world, Taipan.

I am also suspicious, very very much suspicious...

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Henk,

to illustrate the playing style with best games is really a nice idea. A lot of work for me. Maybe I will do that later ... if I have holiday and more time for it.

In the past ... I am writing reviews, other things ... for German chess magazine "Schachwelt" by GM Jörg Hickl I do that what you like. I compare a bit the styles with styles by all the older World Champions. Readers from Schachwelt like that and different of the strong players / Readers - also grandmasters - helps here a bit, send my chess books or comments.

It's funny for reading, not more not less.
The quesiton of seriousness isn't given.

But your other idea is great and logical.
Need only again a lot of time and all my free time I am using for working on that what I have so far.

For around 6 months I do that and search a good "html" tool for replaying games on my site. I don't know why but with the tool by Michael Kaeting (MyChess Viewer) I am using in the past for such things I have at the moment problems. I will try out it again later.

Thanks for your comments!

Best
Frank

[fern]

This discussion about style emerges here from time to time and I wonder if it have sense.
In a certain way, "style" is, in Arts, the specific look the artist have about the world and they can be very different and valuable.
In technological and scientific endeavors, the word has no sense. You are or you are not getting the truth. There is just one "style", the correct statement. All the rest is less a matter of style but of error.
Now chess is not science neither technology, but has some features of them: there is an objective problem that probably have objectively a best solution, perhaps an unique one. Or you get it or not. Where is the style there, but in the different ways you will NOT get that move?
When you examine, by example, some games of the romantic period that are full of style, you can see that in fact they are plenty of mistakes: moves that gives rrom to attacks, false sacrifices, pyrotechnics that are not the shortest way, combinations based in faulty calculations, etc.
It could even be said that an style, when exist at all, is the specific way you go astray....

Fern

[cdani]

This discussion about style emerges here from time to time and I wonder if it have sense.
In a certain way, "style" is, in Arts, the specific look the artist have about the world and they can be very different and valuable.
In technological and scientific endeavors, the word has no sense. You are or you are not getting the truth. There is just one "style", the correct statement. All the rest is less a matter of style but of error.
Now chess is not science neither technology, but has some features of them: there is an objective problem that probably have objectively a best solution, perhaps an unique one. Or you get it or not. Where is the style there, but in the different ways you will NOT get that move?
When you examine, by example, some games of the romantic period that are full of style, you can see that in fact they are plenty of mistakes: moves that gives rrom to attacks, false sacrifices, pyrotechnics that are not the shortest way, combinations based in faulty calculations, etc.
It could even be said that an style, when exist at all, is the specific way you go astray....

Fern

I agree. The style is consequence of what one has learnt, or consequence of how the engine has been programmed. So is an intrinsic limitation, because limits the objectivity of the person, or limits the capabilities of the engine.

In the person, improve this is equivalent to set aside the ego to be capable of analyze better. In the engine, the infinite analysis.