Which of the many chess engines in this forum use b strategy ?

[syzygy]

...
Artificial intelligence in chess is to make the machine create beautiful games and try to mate the opponent king ...

How do you program "beautiful" ?

He just complains about people who do program.

[mclane]

He just complains about programs who do not know that the target of chess is to mate.

[Dann Corbit]

Means they do only follow a few interesting or important branches and not those they should have calculated...

How many b strategy programs do we have ?

What about a list ?!

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Type_B ... B_programs

Btw. in the list above david broughtons engine vega/ philidor / MkV and MKVI are missing

https://www.chessprogramming.org/David_Broughton

The idea of searching only the best moves is embraced by all strong modern chess programs.
An A type searcher would be limited to alpha-beta pruning only.
As soon as you add null move or LMR or any other speculative pruning, you become type B.
Type B pruning is "unsound" because it misses possible best moves.
But it is pragmatically better because we don't usually need to explore paths where you are tossing pieces right and left as deeply as paths where you don't do that.
One could argue that even PVS search is type B, since we search non-pv nodes with a zero window.

[mclane]

So you redefine the situation. You claim that the horrible machine chess we see is in fact b strategy.

Sorry I do not accept this revisionism.

Of course today's engines prune. But they prune the way it is no risk to the outcome. This is to guarantee elo. And sacrifice beauty and intelligence.

B strategy is to climb that mountain without rope.
Today's engines use flexible rope.

[Dann Corbit]

So you redefine the situation. You claim that the horrible machine chess we see is in fact b strategy.

Sorry I do not accept this revisionism.

Of course today's engines prune. But they prune the way it is no risk to the outcome. This is to guarantee elo. And sacrifice beauty and intelligence.

B strategy is to climb that mountain without rope.
Today's engines use flexible rope.

I reject your hypothesis.
Todays's chess engines make breathtaking, beautiful moves. I have seen Komodo make a queen sacrifice that stunned the crowd. There are Morphy like tactical stunners. There are Botvinick like positional squeezes. There are strategic masterpieces and even utter nonsense gaffes. I think you have not been paying attention.
If you are looking for perfection you won't find it. Chess engines are written by people. Same as the one who play it OTB.

[mclane]

I am not looking for perfection.

I am looking for intelligent chess.
And today's engine sacrifice intelligent chess for elo and in the competition they have to fight.

So we need an AI research out of this competition.

And out of these stupid ELO races.

Instead New programmers copy this race and
Participate in
this competition.

Why??

As if 1000 engines doing stupid moves is not enough they present 1001. engine.

Why is there a need to compete with stockfish or komodo?

They are on the wrong track.

[tmokonen]

What romantic nonsense. Typically stupid Thorsten shitposting.

[Tony P.]

Todays's chess engines make breathtaking, beautiful moves. I have seen Komodo make a queen sacrifice that stunned the crowd. There are Morphy like tactical stunners. There are Botvinick like positional squeezes. There are strategic masterpieces and even utter nonsense gaffes. I think you have not been paying attention.

Writing an engine that noticeably often makes moves that a particular user is likely to find beautiful is an easier way to gratify them than making them wait for rarer, more exquisite beauty and spend a lot of time to understand it all by playing through the numerous variations.

After Tal sacs are blunder-checked with a strong engine, they may not seem beautiful anymore because they were incorrect However, they were considered beautiful before strong computers refuted them, and they hypnotized the opponents.

[Tord]

After Tal sacs are blunder-checked with a strong engine, they may not seem beautiful anymore because they were incorrect

This is largely a myth. As explained by Ivan Sokolov in the preface to Sacrifice and Initiative in Chess:

Mikhail Tal's sacrifices have a reputation that there was a significant amount of bluff involved, and before I started working on this book and had a serious look at his sacrifices, I was inclined to concur to this general opinion.

But nothing could be further from the truth! Even if you give them enough time to run, computer engines are not able to refute 90% of Tal's sacrifices. There is always compensation even against the very best defense, and most of the time it is enough for at least a draw.

Of course, I do not know, and I will never find out, how much of those possibilities Tal actually saw and how much was his 'intuition' (please see in the chapter on 'Intuitive Sacrifices' my opinion on this subject). But I’m sure that he saw a lot! Tal was an attacking devil, a nine-headed monster, a true Houdini. Not the crap we buy for 80 euros and install on our computers – Tal was the real deal. He could hide an elephant!

When it comes to Shannon type A vs B: As has been pointed out earlier, all modern programs use type B, but they use shallow verification searches to verify that moves are safe to prune. Omitting verification searches would not make the engines play more intelligent or attractive chess, it would only cause them to make more tactical blunders (and this is the only way in which it would make the engines play more human-like).

While I agree with Thorsten that the engines of the past could be more entertaining and had more varied styles, this has nothing to do with type A vs type B searches. It is partly because of improved search depth and speed, and partly because human evaluation tuning has been largely replaced by automated tuning.

You can actually see something similar in elite human play: Elite chess has become much more about concrete calculation and less about clash of different styles and ideas, and there is less diversity of styles. If you go back to the age of Steinitz, Lasker, Nimzovich, Tarrasch, Spielmann and Rubinstein, you see much more variety and personality than in the current computer-assisted age.

[Gerd Isenberg]

Means they do only follow a few interesting or important branches and not those they should have calculated...

How many b strategy programs do we have ?

What about a list ?!

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Type_B ... B_programs

Btw. in the list above david broughtons engine vega/ philidor / MkV and MKVI are missing

https://www.chessprogramming.org/David_Broughton

Don't know about Vega, but Philidor and Chess Champion Mark V applied SX aka SEX (Search EXtension, also negative), that is fractional ply extensions and reductions, but not only considering N plausible moves in a strict Type B like foreward pruning sense at or near the root, as it was common with Greenblatt, Mac Hack and that like. With MCTS/NN one has a whiff of Type B characteristics due to exploitation vs exploration - and you may try to train nets with some other targets than only winning the game.