Best Style/Strength Ratio?

[Ovyron]

What do you think about engine's style?

Apparently computer chess enthusiasts can be separated into three groups:

1. The largest group measures success on "elo" points. New programmers are introduced to this concept and dedicate their time to improving their engine's performance. By far, the largest amount of resources is used for testing chess engines and measuring their exact strength against other engines and previous versions. Any kind of change, even if it makes sense, is deemed a "regression" if it provides fewer elo, and set back, and authors may decide to leave bugs in, or code that they don't understand in their engine, if it prouces a higher elo.

2. There's a second group that doesn't care about elo, and cares about analysis features. For these, things like "MultiPV" or "go searchmoves" are features wanted in an engine. They measure success on solving best moves for positions, and want the engine that finds those moves the fastest. For this they are willing to interact with the positions and use non-standard analysis methods like Chessbase's DPA or Aquarium's IDEA. They need software to store their positions, like when the engine has learning to speed up analysis, and have pet positions or test suites that they use to measure how good an engine is at finding the best moves on these. Special versions of engines are made for these cases even if they have lower elo than default.

3. A third group enjoys the games that the engines play themselves, no less than those classic games played by human masters. Aiming to produce the same exciment of so called "immortal games", collecting engines that allow the user to experiment with settings and create personalities, posting interesting games by engines to be replayed by other users with the same enthusiams, so that these great games aren't just used to produce some elo and forgotten. These will join servers or channels to watch the engine games as they happen, and will treasure old versions of engines that produced games more interesting to replay. They measure success in something called "style"; the more style an enginer has, the better the games it produces, and the lower the style, the duller, less worth replaying games are produced.

Of course there are other groups, like those that want an engine to play against, those that use the engines to train, or to analyze their games but don't care about finding the best continuation, but about finding a continuation they understand that may help them in their chess games, etc.

But focusing on the first 3, what becomes apparent is that the first 2 have objective methods to measure their success, elo becomes exact with more games played, more positions solved or solving them faster is easily seen as better by the second group.

But what about the third one?

We currently have no way to measure style, and it seems to be one of those things that "you know it when you see it". But so far all methods to point out and claim that some engine's style is amazing have been subjective. We can't even agree on what's positional play or tactical play, because a positional style may be produced by discovering long term tactics.

Style isn't a binary compound where some engines start at 0 style and a maximum style is set at 100 and you place them in a line, because the engine's style depends on many things.

Even King Safety isn't like that, there may be an engine that launches king attacks on every game even if they're not successful, but takes care of keeping its king secure, while another may not attack as often, but doesn't care about the safety of their own King and may left it in the middle of the board. What style is better? Surely the latter seems more impresive it it manages to win by a split hair as otherwise it was about to be mated.

Another factor is material imbalances, when an engine seeks them out, and you can see a game praised as spectacular when a whole queen is sacrificed for long term advantage. But materialism is very important here, and engines of better style tend to be lower on material as per classic counting of it, and compesnate with positional factors.

Does the engine that doesn't have any problem sacrificing pieces against the enemy king to open it up and hang tight to its pawns have a worse style than one that throws away all its pawns to achieve higher piece activity?

What looks best, sacrificing a Bishop and a Knight and prove that it's sound because the other side has to defend? Or playing a rook to an attacked square and just leave it there because the opponent is worse capturing it, and then you do it with a queen...

Those are questions left unanswered because everything is used to measure engine's performance or their ability to finds solutions faster.

Mentioning actual names, the most impressive style I witnessed for years were by Thinker 5.3b Inert, but then Fizbo appeared...

My idea is that an engine's style might be measured by some Style/Strength ratio. Or a Strength/Style ratio, or whatever.

The point is that once you get enough elo, you would defeat weaker engines with a great style, and even better than engines of supposedly better style at the same level.

Checking only won games may not be the answer, as drawn games may present some great style despite the result, and part of style may be playing spectacular moves even if they lose. So, imagine some 3400 elo engine that goes all or nothing against everything and would rather lose than get a draw, producing spectacular play and still achieving high level, wouldn't that have a greats style, forcibly?

So with Fizbo, it may not have shown a style as great as Thinker, but it was playing much stronger and still with a superb style, so it'd have achieved a higher Style/Strength ratio. The best of both worlds.

And then it came Houdini with high Contempt, that I never tested to check its strength, but was achieving some incredible playing style and move choice...

What has inspired this thread is the recent developments with Stockfish Contempt. Stockfish has became stronger than any other public engine and the games it produces have been awesome!

While Stockfish was aiming for elo, and managed to top the rating lists, it perhaps also became the champion of the other two camps, with the best rate at solving positions, and with the best Style/Strength ratio because nothing else comes close to playing as attractively at this level.

Who do you think has the best ratio, if such a thing exists, and what would you propose so this could be measured objectively? Perhaps there's some unknown engine currently that would be best at this, and not specially by playing very strong, but we haven't caught it in the sea of games played.

Or perhaps we can increase Stockfish Contempt so that it theoretically has better style than anything else, is this the way to go?

[jmartus]

Open Tal 1.0 i vote is the best for style and strength. Get a faster computer if it's not strong enough for you!

[Ovyron]

Open Tal 1.0 i vote is the best for style and strength. Get a faster computer if it's not strong enough for you!

Komodo 1.0 with KingHunter personality might have a better Style/Strength Ratio than OpenTal, though.

The problem here is that if I got a faster computer for OpenTal, KingHunter would get stronger as well...

[jmartus]

I don't know open tal 1.00 is pretty crazy Style. Maybe perhaps stockfish 9 contempt 100

[Ovyron]

I don't know open tal 1.00 is pretty crazy Style. Maybe perhaps stockfish 9 contempt 100

Okay, so here's a game (not cherry-picked) Stockfish "Catastrophe" 9 with Contempt 100 against OpenTal. Indeed, Stockfish did nothing spectacular* while OpenTal kept putting its Knight in places attacked by pawns where it couldn't be captured.

[pgn][Event "3 Minutes/Game + 3 Seconds/Move"]
[Site "Uly's Home"]
[Date "2018.02.11"]
[Round "1"]
[White "OpenTal"]
[Black "Stockfish Catastrophe"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 {book 0s} Nf6 {-0.80/23 11s} 2. c4 {book 0s} e6
{-0.74/23 4s} 3. Nc3 {book 0s (Nf3)} Bb4 {-0.90/21 4s}
4. Nf3 {book 0s} O-O {-0.87/22 3s} 5. e3 {book 0s} b6
{-0.79/24 15s} 6. Bd2 {+1.05/17 7s (Bd3)} Bb7 {-0.95/20 4s}
7. Be2 {+1.14/19 7s (Bd3)} d5 {-1.04/21 7s (Nc6)} 8. O-O
{+1.09/16 7s (Rc1)} Be7 {-1.11/20 6s (dxc4)} 9. cxd5
{+1.30/16 7s} exd5 {-0.75/23 25s (Nxd5)} 10. Rc1 {+1.20/17
7s (Qb3)} c5 {-0.95/20 2s (Nbd7)} 11. dxc5 {+1.12/16 7s
(Qb3)} bxc5 {-1.05/19 1s} 12. Qb3 {+1.17/18 7s (Qc2)} Qc8
{-1.16/21 5s (Ba6)} 13. Rfd1 {+1.18/17 7s (Qc2)} Nbd7
{-1.14/20 3s (c4)} 14. Be1 {+1.27/16 6s (Qc2)} Re8
{-1.19/22 8s (Rb8)} 15. Nb5 {+1.20/16 6s (a3)} a6 {-1.35/18
2s (Rb8)} 16. Nbd4 {+0.73/18 6s (Nc3)} g6 {-1.37/20 3s}
17. Qa4 {+0.52/17 6s} Qc7 {-1.19/24 23s (Nb6)} 18. Bd3
{+0.66/17 6s (Qc2)} Bd6 {-1.36/21 6s (Qd6)} 19. Bb1
{+0.59/15 6s (h3)} Ne4 {-1.25/22 13s (Rac8)} 20. Ba5
{+0.64/17 6s} Qc8 {-1.10/24 5s} 21. Nd2 {+0.59/18 6s (b4)}
Nxd2 {-1.56/21 6s} 22. Rxd2 {+0.35/19 6s} Ne5 {-1.67/22 3s}
23. Qd1 {+0.62/18 6s (h3)} Qd7 {-1.72/20 3s (Qg4)} 24. Nb3
{+0.53/16 6s (Ne2)} Rac8 {-1.67/22 6s (Qe7)} 25. Kh1
{+0.26/15 6s (Be4)} Qe7 {-2.97/22 4s (d4)} 26. f4 {-0.29/15
5s} Nd7 {-2.96/23 4s (c4)} 27. Bc3 {-0.05/17 5s (Qf3)} Qxe3
{-3.37/23 1s} 28. Na5 {-0.37/19 5s} Ba8 {-3.52/24 5s}
29. Nc4 {-0.81/18 5s} Qxf4 {-3.60/24 2s} 30. Nxd6 {-0.60/19
5s} Qxd6 {-3.47/26 7s} 31. b4 {-0.72/19 5s} cxb4 {-3.36/25
6s} 32. Bd4 {-0.96/17 5s} Rc4 {-3.46/25 18s} 33. Rf2
{-0.98/16 5s (Qg1)} Rec8 {-3.97/22 8s (Qe7)} 34. Rfc2
{-1.00/16 5s (Rcc2)} Bc6 {-4.41/22 6s (Qf4)} 35. Bf2
{-1.15/17 5s (Bg1)} Qf4 {-4.82/22 2s} 36. Bg3 {-1.42/19 5s}
Qe3 {-5.03/22 2s} 37. Bf2 {-1.47/20 5s (Qf1)} Qg5 {-5.20/22
1s} 38. Qf1 {-1.73/18 5s} Bb5 {-5.38/23 3s (Ne5)} 39. Qg1
{-1.73/18 5s (Qe1)} Ba4 {-5.54/22 3s (Ne5)} 40. Be3
{-2.14/19 5s} Qe5 {-5.61/22 3s (Qe7)} 41. Bd4 {-2.07/19 5s
(Rxc4)} Qd6 {-5.67/22 4s} 42. Rxc4 {-1.98/18 4s} dxc4
{-5.85/23 6s} 43. a3 {-2.34/19 4s (Qe3)} a5 {-6.01/24 6s
(b3)} 44. Qf2 {-2.09/16 4s} Qd5 {-6.21/23 5s (f6)} 45. axb4
{-1.97/18 4s (Rf1)} axb4 {-6.19/23 2s} 46. Re1 {-2.56/17 4s
(Ba2)} c3 {-6.37/22 2s} 47. Be4 {-3.20/19 4s} Qd6 {-6.51/22
3s} 48. Rf1 {-3.34/18 4s} Bb3 {-6.66/21 3s (f6)} 49. Bc2
{-3.25/15 4s (Bb7)} Qd5 {-7.10/20 1s} 50. Bxb3 {-3.95/18
4s} Qxb3 {-7.52/21 2s} 51. h3 {-3.95/19 4s} Qd5 {-7.72/21
2s (c2)} 52. Qe3 {-3.60/18 4s} Qe6 {-7.88/20 1s} 53. Qg3
{-4.25/16 4s} Qc4 {-8.45/23 7s} 54. Qf2 {-4.65/17 4s} Re8
{-8.64/22 1s} 55. Qf3 {-5.05/18 4s} f5 {-9.01/25 3s}
56. Rd1 {-5.43/20 4s} Re4 {-9.45/24 5s (c2)} 57. Be3
{-5.71/17 4s (Qf2)} Nf8 {-9.79/25 1s (Ne5)} 58. Bh6
{-4.91/17 4s} c2 {-10.57/25 2s} 59. Rg1 {-5.32/19 4s (Rd8)}
f4 {-13.95/18 1s (Ne6)} 60. Kh2 {-5.48/20 4s (Qf2)} b3
{-15.12/22 5s (Ne6)} 61. Ra1 {-5.84/18 4s} Ne6 {-17.80/20
3s (Re7)} 62. Ra8+ {-5.79/16 4s (Qf2)} Kf7 {-21.00/19 2s}
63. Ra1 {-6.15/16 4s (Ra7+)} b2 {-30.03/20 4s (Qd4)}
64. Ra7+ {-9.47/15 4s} Kf6 {-31.26/18 1s} 65. Qg4 {-9.75/15
4s (Bxf4)} b1=Q {-39.42/19 4s} 66. Bg7+ {-10.66/13 4s
(Qh4+)} Nxg7 {-37.90/1 0s} 67. Qh4+ {-14.17/14 4s} Kf5
{-M15/20 2s (Ke5)} 68. Qg4+ {-17.72/17 4s (Ra5+)} Ke5
{-M11/26 1s} 69. Re7+ {-17.15/15 3s (Qg5+)} Qe6 {-M8/38 5s}
70. Rxe6+ {-M6/13 3s (Qg5+)} Nxe6 {-M5/46 1s} 71. g3
{-M5/16 2s} c1=Q {-M4/65 2s} 72. gxf4+ {-M4/12 0s} Qxf4+
{-M3/127 2s} 73. Qxf4+ {-M3/10 0s} Nxf4 {-M2/127 0s} 74. h4
{-M2/8 0s} Qf1 {-M1/127 0s (Qc2+)} 75. h5 {-M1/4 0s} Qg2#
{-M0/127 0s} 0-1[/pgn]

*) Unless queen sac to double promote some pawns to queen counts

[jmartus]

Alright well try contempt 100 with the latest development version. Guarantee you that has better style then komodo 1.0 kinghunter

All 1 Cpu

kinghunter 1.0
4q2r/1b1kbp2/1p2p1p1/pP1pP1N1/P2P1PQP/3BK3/2R5/8 w - - 0 1

18 00:10 26,470k 2,618k +1.18 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3xg6 Qe8-f8 h4-h5 Rh8-g8 Ke3-e2 Be7-b4 f4-f5 e6xf5 Bg6xf5+ Kd7-d8 Qg4-h4+ Bb4-e7 Qh4-h3 Qf8-f7 h5-h6 Be7-b4 Rc2-c1 Rg8-f8 h6-h7 Rf8-h8 Qh3-h4+ Bb4-e7 Qh4-g4 Rh8xh7 Bf5xh7 Qf7xh7 Ke2-f3 Qh7-e4+ Qg4xe4 d5xe4+ Kf3-e3
19 00:12 32,335k 2,604k +1.21 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3xg6 Qe8-f8 h4-h5 Rh8-g8 Ke3-e2 Be7-b4 f4-f5 e6xf5 Bg6xf5+ Kd7-d8 Qg4-h4+ Bb4-e7 Qh4-h3 Qf8-f7 h5-h6 Be7-b4 Rc2-c1 Rg8-f8 h6-h7 Rf8-h8 Ke2-d3 Qf7-g7 Rc1-c2 Bb4-e7 Bf5-c8 Qg7-g6+ Qh3-f5 Qg6xf5+ Bc8xf5
19 00:13 35,210k 2,644k +1.21 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3xg6 Qe8-f8 h4-h5 Rh8-g8 Ke3-e2 Be7-b4 f4-f5 e6xf5 Bg6xf5+ Kd7-d8 Qg4-h4+ Bb4-e7 Qh4-h3 Qf8-f7 h5-h6 Be7-b4 Rc2-c1 Rg8-f8 h6-h7 Rf8-h8 Ke2-d3 Qf7-g7 Rc1-c2 Bb4-e7 Bf5-c8 Qg7-g6+ Qh3-f5 Qg6xf5+ Bc8xf5
20 00:16 42,813k 2,637k +1.04 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3xg6 Qe8-f8 h4-h5 Rh8-g8 Ke3-e2 Rg8-g7 h5-h6 Rg7xg6 Qg4xg6 Qf8xf4 h6-h7 Qf4-h2+ Ke2-d1 Qh2-h1+ Kd1-d2 Qh1-h4 Qg6-d3 Qh4-h1 Rc2-b2 Kd7-c7 Kd2-c2 Kc7-b8 Kc2-b3 Kb8-a8 Rb2-g2 Ka8-a7
20 00:18 49,087k 2,692k +1.04 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3xg6 Qe8-f8 h4-h5 Rh8-g8 Ke3-e2 Rg8-g7 h5-h6 Rg7xg6 Qg4xg6 Qf8xf4 h6-h7 Qf4-h2+ Ke2-d1 Qh2-h1+ Kd1-d2 Qh1-h4 Qg6-d3 Qh4-h1 Rc2-b2 Kd7-c7 Kd2-c2 Kc7-b8 Kc2-b3 Kb8-a8 Rb2-g2 Ka8-a7
21 00:34 88,390k 2,547k +0.96 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3xg6 Qe8-f8 h4-h5 Rh8-g8 Ke3-e2 Qf8-g7 f4-f5 Qg7-h6 f5xe6+ Kd7-d8 Rc2-c3 Qh6-g5 Qg4xg5 Be7xg5 Ke2-f3 Rg8-g7 Kf3-g4 Bg5-h6 Rc3-c2 Rg7-e7 Kg4-f5 Bh6-e3 Kf5-f6 Be3-h6 Rc2-c3 Bh6-d2 Rc3-d3 Bd2-h6 Rd3-f3
21 00:37 98,171k 2,603k +0.96 Ng5xe6 f7xe6 Bd3xg6 Qe8-f8 h4-h5 Rh8-g8 Ke3-e2 Qf8-g7 f4-f5 Qg7-h6 f5xe6+ Kd7-d8 Rc2-c3 Qh6-g5 Qg4xg5 Be7xg5 Ke2-f3 Rg8-g7 Kf3-g4 Bg5-h6 Rc3-c2 Rg7-e7 Kg4-f5 Bh6-e3 Kf5-f6 Be3-h6 Rc2-c3 Bh6-d2 Rc3-d3 Bd2-h6 Rd3-f3


FEN: 4q2r/1b1kbp2/1p2p1p1/pP1pP1N1/P2P1PQP/3BK3/2R5/8 w - - 0 1

Stockfish_18020919_x64_bmi2: contempt 100!
28/46- 00:12 26,066k 2,036k +0.67 Ng5xe6 f7xe6
28/46- 00:15 31,993k 2,022k +0.60 Ng5xe6 f7xe6
28/51- 00:17 35,641k 2,032k +0.48 Ng5xe6 f7xe6
28/51+ 00:22 45,127k 2,045k +0.57 Bd3xg6
28/51+ 00:22 46,158k 2,044k +0.79 Bd3xg6
28/51- 00:23 47,397k 2,043k +0.32 Bd3xg6 Be7xg5
28/51+ 00:23 48,702k 2,044k +0.70 Bd3xg6
28/51 00:25 52,996k 2,049k +1.20 Bd3xg6

[Ovyron]

Alright well try contempt 100 with the latest development version

Do you have any link to any fast compile of that? I'm afraid the latest dev would do worse than S9 release because I only have access to slow compiles and compiling on my own produces things slower than S9 release.

[jmartus]

http://www.zipproth.de/ and download brainfish engine February 09, 2018 5207156

It's like 2 seconds faster on finding that move with brainfish compile

and stockfish 9 doesn't even find the move with contempt 100 in atleast 40 seconds 1 cpu

[BrendanJNorman]

I don't know open tal 1.00 is pretty crazy Style. Maybe perhaps stockfish 9 contempt 100

Okay, so here's a game (not cherry-picked) Stockfish "Catastrophe" 9 with Contempt 100 against OpenTal. Indeed, Stockfish did nothing spectacular* while OpenTal kept putting its Knight in places attacked by pawns where it couldn't be captured.

[pgn][Event "3 Minutes/Game + 3 Seconds/Move"]
[Site "Uly's Home"]
[Date "2018.02.11"]
[Round "1"]
[White "OpenTal"]
[Black "Stockfish Catastrophe"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. d4 {book 0s} Nf6 {-0.80/23 11s} 2. c4 {book 0s} e6
{-0.74/23 4s} 3. Nc3 {book 0s (Nf3)} Bb4 {-0.90/21 4s}
4. Nf3 {book 0s} O-O {-0.87/22 3s} 5. e3 {book 0s} b6
{-0.79/24 15s} 6. Bd2 {+1.05/17 7s (Bd3)} Bb7 {-0.95/20 4s}
7. Be2 {+1.14/19 7s (Bd3)} d5 {-1.04/21 7s (Nc6)} 8. O-O
{+1.09/16 7s (Rc1)} Be7 {-1.11/20 6s (dxc4)} 9. cxd5
{+1.30/16 7s} exd5 {-0.75/23 25s (Nxd5)} 10. Rc1 {+1.20/17
7s (Qb3)} c5 {-0.95/20 2s (Nbd7)} 11. dxc5 {+1.12/16 7s
(Qb3)} bxc5 {-1.05/19 1s} 12. Qb3 {+1.17/18 7s (Qc2)} Qc8
{-1.16/21 5s (Ba6)} 13. Rfd1 {+1.18/17 7s (Qc2)} Nbd7
{-1.14/20 3s (c4)} 14. Be1 {+1.27/16 6s (Qc2)} Re8
{-1.19/22 8s (Rb8)} 15. Nb5 {+1.20/16 6s (a3)} a6 {-1.35/18
2s (Rb8)} 16. Nbd4 {+0.73/18 6s (Nc3)} g6 {-1.37/20 3s}
17. Qa4 {+0.52/17 6s} Qc7 {-1.19/24 23s (Nb6)} 18. Bd3
{+0.66/17 6s (Qc2)} Bd6 {-1.36/21 6s (Qd6)} 19. Bb1
{+0.59/15 6s (h3)} Ne4 {-1.25/22 13s (Rac8)} 20. Ba5
{+0.64/17 6s} Qc8 {-1.10/24 5s} 21. Nd2 {+0.59/18 6s (b4)}
Nxd2 {-1.56/21 6s} 22. Rxd2 {+0.35/19 6s} Ne5 {-1.67/22 3s}
23. Qd1 {+0.62/18 6s (h3)} Qd7 {-1.72/20 3s (Qg4)} 24. Nb3
{+0.53/16 6s (Ne2)} Rac8 {-1.67/22 6s (Qe7)} 25. Kh1
{+0.26/15 6s (Be4)} Qe7 {-2.97/22 4s (d4)} 26. f4 {-0.29/15
5s} Nd7 {-2.96/23 4s (c4)} 27. Bc3 {-0.05/17 5s (Qf3)} Qxe3
{-3.37/23 1s} 28. Na5 {-0.37/19 5s} Ba8 {-3.52/24 5s}
29. Nc4 {-0.81/18 5s} Qxf4 {-3.60/24 2s} 30. Nxd6 {-0.60/19
5s} Qxd6 {-3.47/26 7s} 31. b4 {-0.72/19 5s} cxb4 {-3.36/25
6s} 32. Bd4 {-0.96/17 5s} Rc4 {-3.46/25 18s} 33. Rf2
{-0.98/16 5s (Qg1)} Rec8 {-3.97/22 8s (Qe7)} 34. Rfc2
{-1.00/16 5s (Rcc2)} Bc6 {-4.41/22 6s (Qf4)} 35. Bf2
{-1.15/17 5s (Bg1)} Qf4 {-4.82/22 2s} 36. Bg3 {-1.42/19 5s}
Qe3 {-5.03/22 2s} 37. Bf2 {-1.47/20 5s (Qf1)} Qg5 {-5.20/22
1s} 38. Qf1 {-1.73/18 5s} Bb5 {-5.38/23 3s (Ne5)} 39. Qg1
{-1.73/18 5s (Qe1)} Ba4 {-5.54/22 3s (Ne5)} 40. Be3
{-2.14/19 5s} Qe5 {-5.61/22 3s (Qe7)} 41. Bd4 {-2.07/19 5s
(Rxc4)} Qd6 {-5.67/22 4s} 42. Rxc4 {-1.98/18 4s} dxc4
{-5.85/23 6s} 43. a3 {-2.34/19 4s (Qe3)} a5 {-6.01/24 6s
(b3)} 44. Qf2 {-2.09/16 4s} Qd5 {-6.21/23 5s (f6)} 45. axb4
{-1.97/18 4s (Rf1)} axb4 {-6.19/23 2s} 46. Re1 {-2.56/17 4s
(Ba2)} c3 {-6.37/22 2s} 47. Be4 {-3.20/19 4s} Qd6 {-6.51/22
3s} 48. Rf1 {-3.34/18 4s} Bb3 {-6.66/21 3s (f6)} 49. Bc2
{-3.25/15 4s (Bb7)} Qd5 {-7.10/20 1s} 50. Bxb3 {-3.95/18
4s} Qxb3 {-7.52/21 2s} 51. h3 {-3.95/19 4s} Qd5 {-7.72/21
2s (c2)} 52. Qe3 {-3.60/18 4s} Qe6 {-7.88/20 1s} 53. Qg3
{-4.25/16 4s} Qc4 {-8.45/23 7s} 54. Qf2 {-4.65/17 4s} Re8
{-8.64/22 1s} 55. Qf3 {-5.05/18 4s} f5 {-9.01/25 3s}
56. Rd1 {-5.43/20 4s} Re4 {-9.45/24 5s (c2)} 57. Be3
{-5.71/17 4s (Qf2)} Nf8 {-9.79/25 1s (Ne5)} 58. Bh6
{-4.91/17 4s} c2 {-10.57/25 2s} 59. Rg1 {-5.32/19 4s (Rd8)}
f4 {-13.95/18 1s (Ne6)} 60. Kh2 {-5.48/20 4s (Qf2)} b3
{-15.12/22 5s (Ne6)} 61. Ra1 {-5.84/18 4s} Ne6 {-17.80/20
3s (Re7)} 62. Ra8+ {-5.79/16 4s (Qf2)} Kf7 {-21.00/19 2s}
63. Ra1 {-6.15/16 4s (Ra7+)} b2 {-30.03/20 4s (Qd4)}
64. Ra7+ {-9.47/15 4s} Kf6 {-31.26/18 1s} 65. Qg4 {-9.75/15
4s (Bxf4)} b1=Q {-39.42/19 4s} 66. Bg7+ {-10.66/13 4s
(Qh4+)} Nxg7 {-37.90/1 0s} 67. Qh4+ {-14.17/14 4s} Kf5
{-M15/20 2s (Ke5)} 68. Qg4+ {-17.72/17 4s (Ra5+)} Ke5
{-M11/26 1s} 69. Re7+ {-17.15/15 3s (Qg5+)} Qe6 {-M8/38 5s}
70. Rxe6+ {-M6/13 3s (Qg5+)} Nxe6 {-M5/46 1s} 71. g3
{-M5/16 2s} c1=Q {-M4/65 2s} 72. gxf4+ {-M4/12 0s} Qxf4+
{-M3/127 2s} 73. Qxf4+ {-M3/10 0s} Nxf4 {-M2/127 0s} 74. h4
{-M2/8 0s} Qf1 {-M1/127 0s (Qc2+)} 75. h5 {-M1/4 0s} Qg2#
{-M0/127 0s} 0-1[/pgn]

*) Unless queen sac to double promote some pawns to queen counts

Come on man, you know OpenTal is designed for play against humans!

Playing against Stockfish is like Mike Tyson against Peewee Herman.

To answer your questions though, since I'm not really a fan of engines above around 2900 (I like to play against them), here is my list.

Here are the Aggressive ones I like:

OpenTal
Thinker 5.1c/e Passive
Thinker 5.4d Passive
Baron 1.6.1/1.7.0
Komodo Kinghunter
Zappa Mexico DA
Deep Junior 7
Alfil 11/8.1.1
Andscacs 0.64
Fizbo 1.1
Strelka 1.8
Dimitri Aggressive
Disaster Area Cognac/Johnny Hector personalities
ProDeo 2.6 Attacker Li personality
Various Rodent personalities (Topalov, Shirov, Tal, Kasparov, Kasparov89, Attacker Jerry etc)
Rebel Century MACHEID/Storm personalities

and so on.

All unique and aggressive, non-computer-like play.

[jmartus]

Yeah I agree I put OpenTal 1.0 extermly aggressive and if u want more strength then use latest stockfish dev contempt 100.