Are there any modern type A strategy engines?

[Madeleine Birchfield]

Most engines these days that use alpha-beta search, like Stockfish, Ethereal, and Komodo, use selectivity heuristics such as reductions, extensions, and forwards pruning in their search, making them type B strategy engines. Are there any engines out there that are type A strategy engines, i.e. that do not use any selectivity heuristics whatsoever in its search, and only rely on brute force?

[Ras]

Are there any engines out there that are type A strategy engines, i.e. that do not use any selectivity heuristics whatsoever in its search, and only rely on brute force?

Sure - early alpha versions of new engines before their authors get around to selectivity. That is, if you don't count quiescence search as selectivity. You'll find such engines on the lower end of the CCRL.

[Madeleine Birchfield]

Affinity Chess by eligolf might be one example of such a type A strategy engine, but only because as of right now eligolf has not yet implemented null move pruning and late move reductions. Once eligolf implements either one of them, as he says he plans on doing in the Affinity Chess Readme.md file, Affinity Chess is no longer a type A strategy engine, but a type B strategy engine.

https://github.com/eligolf/affinity_chess

[karger]

SOS 5 chess engine has a brute force option.

[mwyoung]

Most engines these days that use alpha-beta search, like Stockfish, Ethereal, and Komodo, use selectivity heuristics such as reductions, extensions, and forwards pruning in their search, making them type B strategy engines. Are there any engines out there that are type A strategy engines, i.e. that do not use any selectivity heuristics whatsoever in its search, and only rely on brute force?

All of the early programs used a type A search. The problem is the depth and complexity of chess. And even with the fastest theoretical computer under the laws of physics. This does not get us closer. As type A search engines is what Shannon called Slow and Smart. And would take trillion over trillion trillion trillion .... years to get a meaningful move search.

It looks like the best answer will always be a type B search. With all its pruning, and limitations.

[Uri Blass]

I see no problem with reductions.

In theory you also solve chess with reductions if you search deep enough.
I see no reason to think that without reductions it is possible to solve chess faster.