Existence Flanking against Center Control as I learnt at School of Chess, 
there are 7 different school with unique 'accentuation',


Philidor, believed that maintaining the mobility of pawns was the most important strategic factor of chess
Modenese school, emphasized rapid development of the pieces for an attack on the opposing king, aiming for checkmate or winning material in the process
English school, allowed attacks after strategic advantages were obtained when the position was prepared – control was gained over the center and key points
Romantic chess, characterized by brash sacrifices and open, tactical games
Steinitz, strengthened defensive techniques and advocated strategic maneuvering to gain enough of an advantage before launching an attack
Hypermodern school,  emphasizes control of the center by attacking it with pieces especially from the periphery
Soviet hegemony, believed that a weakness that could not be attacked was not a real weakness


So I 'separated' them then I have two condition, Center Control and Flanking. 
When I played with my houdini, Top 3 as first move is always represent and replied (White view) with [d4 or e4 or f4] which means that houdini rules implement Center Control. 
And if I used Flanking method, I always seem to lost too quickly  [or maybe just because my stupidity.. ^^]. 

Are there real Flanking advantages against Center Control (some official game and/or proved calculation) since 'it' born after Center Control?? 

Thanks, 
Ahmad
This is a hard question to answer because you take a very broad, abstract, historical concept (the existence of "schools" in chess, with a particular list that I've definitely not seen before) and then you connect that with a very concrete, peculiar little thing (the moves Houdini suggests in the opening position if it doesn't have an opening book).

I'll just write a bit about both and then I hope you'll understand the difficulty. This is all completely my unsourced opinion and impression of current chess, I'm not going to give sources.

Those schools are a broad overview of the history of the development of chess strategy. First people thought one thing, then that got refined, then someone wrote a book claiming the opposite... That's interesting to read, but there are lots of reasons why it's not that useful to someone currently learning chess, in my view:


Reality wasn't as black and white as those "schools" make it seem. In the end, all of them played chess, they were good, and often if a strong move was available, they would play it. Some players used some techniques more often than other players did. And when they wrote books, they would argue vehemently against other books, because that sells.
That said, most of these discussions were pre-WWII, and the thinking nowadays is closer to what is "Soviet hegemony" in your list: if it works, it works. And since the coming of computers and their great defensive skills, we've found that there are way more things that work than we used to think. Flank openings, classical openings, extremely deep tactical lines, very quiet endgame openings, they all turned out to be playable. Both "hypermodern" and "classical" openings are extremely popular nowadays, and most players play both!
A discussion of "schools" is at such a high level of abstraction that you to wonder if that could ever help you find the best move in some concrete chess position during a tournament, which is in the end the only thing that counts when you're trying to get better at chess.


Then, Houdini. Chess programs aren't very good at the opening, compared to established opening theory. Some reasons why that is:


They don't need to be good at opening theory, because they use opening books. So they are tuned so that they perform best at the later stages of the game.
Opening theory is the compiled knowledge of hundreds of years of human research. Computers are strong, but not remotely close to strong enough to recompute the equivalent of that research in a couple of minutes.
Even if they were, thousands of people have computers running continuously to work on openings, and your single Houdini is up against that too.


So, forget about using Houdini in the opening position. Look at what is popular among strong players. And they use a broader selection of openings than ever.