Engines style of play: positional/tactical

Hello.

I’ve heard that each engine has its own style of play. Some are more positional and strategic, while others are more sharp and tactical.

And so my question is: could you roughly sort the following engines from the most sharp and tactical to the most positional and strategic?:

- Critter 1.6a
- Deep Fritz 14
- Gull 3
- Hiarcs 14
- Houdini 4
- Komodo 7a
- Rybka 4
- Stockfish 5

And does the style of an engine depend on the time it takes to get to a high depth? I was thinking that maybe, for engines of roughly the same strength, engines that quickly get to a very high depth are more sharp and tactical, while engines that do not quickly get to a high depth have a richer and more complex evaluation function and therefore they are maybe more positional and strategic.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Originally posted by Marc Benford
Hello.

I’ve heard that each engine has its own style of play. Some are more positional and strategic, while others are more sharp and tactical.

And so my question is: could you roughly sort the following engines from the most sharp and tactical to the most positional and strategic?:

- Critter 1.6a
- Deep Fritz 14
- Gull 3
- Hiarcs 14
- Houd ...[text shortened]... d therefore they are maybe more positional and strategic.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

It's possible I suppose. Engines are a direct reflection of those who programmed them. It's impossible to know for sure without knowing what the programmers were thinking at the time.