Other troubling lines I found are "Most chess programs operate via brute-force search, which means they look through as many future positions as they can before before making a choice." and "Most computer chess programs won’t see the winning strategy. Instead, they will move the white king to the centre of the board which is the common strategy when there are only a few pieces on the board."kinderchocolate wrote:I believe the article author meant reaching 20 ply by brute-force. That is, compute all the possible moves.Leto wrote:Isn't it bizarre that the article claims their computer searched for a week and it didn't reach a depth of 20 ply on that problem? To me that sounds like something you'd expect from a computer from the 60's. Any computer today should have no problem reaching 20 ply in seconds. A recent dev version of Stockfish finds the mate in less than a second.
He then compared the difficulty (> one week computation) with human intuition.
That was why I shared the article, because I think the author (who was a PHD in artificial intelligence) didn't understand what he was writing, something that is supposed to be his research area.
Correct me if I'm wrong but most chess programs don't use brute force, even Deep Blue wasn't brute force. Selective search techniques have been used for many decades. Seems to me the opposite of his statement is true, most computer chess programs today would find the winning strategy rather quickly.
I agree, I think the author really doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to computer chess.