Russell Sherwood Monday, May 1, 2017
I've had a nagging doubt about how the same engine performs in different Graphic User Interfaces (GUI) for quite some time, decided to do some research.
The method utilised is a small number of positions were tested and the stable nps (nodes per second) per engine/GUI combination recorded. A general average per engine was then calculated and then the performance transformed into an average performance.
| Engine/GUI |
Fritz 15 |
CB14 |
AQ2017 |
Arena |
Hiarcs |
| AsmFish |
89% |
79% |
102% |
121% |
109% |
| K10.4 |
96% |
81% |
99% |
118% |
105% |
| H5 |
104% |
79% |
91% |
123% |
102% |
| Stockfish |
103% |
99% |
100% |
104% |
94% |
| Fritz 15 |
114% |
98% |
82% |
95% |
111% |
So some tentative thoughts
- The difference between the best and worst is around 30-40% in most cases. This is a lot of insight into a position that could be missed
- Fritz15 seems to perform better than Chessbase
- My Hardware/Software combination could be skewing the results
- Different Stockfish versions perform differently in different GUI
So my suggestion to even the semi-serious CC player is to run your own tests and consider if you are using the right Engine/GUI combination(s) to support your analysis!
