When will the chess programmers write an engine that plans ?

[PK]

Chess has 2 main elements:
1)Calculating lines like
if I play A1 then if the opponent play B1 then I play C1.
If I play A1 then if the opponent play B2 then I play C2
if I play A2 then if the opponent....

Despite whatever Kotov said, human calculation is much more messy:

1) My bishop move attacks opponent rook
2) Let's assume rook goes wherever
3) Then my bishop can create another threat
4) Unless rook's wherever is b8, because it attacks my queen from there

[mclane]

Of course as a programmer it is easier to let the search Make some progress instead of trying new ideas.
On the other hand we could reach the same target by buying a new computer.

[jp]

Of course as a programmer it is easier to let the search Make some progress instead of trying new ideas.

Programmers will follow the money. Offer a prize for what you want.

[zullil]

Of course as a programmer it is easier to let the search Make some progress instead of trying new ideas.

Programmers will follow the money. Offer a prize for what you want.

Part of my difficulty lies in understanding what he wants, beyond a program that loses a lot.

[jp]

Part of my difficulty lies in understanding what he wants, beyond a program that loses a lot.

He has in other threads talked about Dinosaur Engine I beating SFdev when they are both restricted to playing on his grandfather's cuckoo clock and claimed this is evidence that no progress has been made.

So my suggested modified goal is this: Some fixed standard of chess play with the minimum memory and computing time.

[mclane]

Guys. The idea is to get Artificial intelligence.
It is not intelligent to do a board game by computing millions of NPS.
Intelligence is the absence of computation.
The search tree approach is nice but doomed when it comes to artificial intelligence.
It is winning when it is about hardware progress. But artificial intelligence is NOT about hardware progress. It is about software progress.

You believe playing good chess need zillions of NPS to be strong.
I do not believe in this concept.

IMO chess is about knowledge and strategy. Not mainly about brute force .

[jp]

The problem is that the field of AI moved away from chess decades ago when AI researchers realized the two weren't really related.

[mclane]

I do not disagree. You are right. The AI science moved away. But I still think chess engines are stupid. Although they have 3400 ELO they are not playing chess but using brute force search to „solve“ it.

LC0 is the evidence for me that it is possible to build strategy over tactics and still play decent human chess.

It’s IMO a shame that a NN has to teach humans that human engines are stupid.

LC0 showed that Stockfish is an idiot.

[Ovyron]

If you're saying you gained 800 Elo in one year, yet you aren't willing to prove it, your story is paper-thin bro.

I never said improved that much, I just said that I improved some hundreds of elo points, and now can reach winning positions against 2300 guys now and then (just yesterday I reached a winning position against a 2100 guy WITH EASE on a 5 0 game, and then I proceeded to lose it with some tactic that I missed...)

Odds are the Uly account is indeed your new one.

If you're happy living in a world where I'm delusional, dishonest, and owner of that uly account at lichess then be my guest! The truth is that I've been honest, claiming the truth, and didn't know that uly account existed until you pointed that out. I know it doesn't matter but if you're the kind of person that holds beliefs like these that are completely backwards that gets to show how reliable your are about what you think you know...

[h1a8]

I mean that creates a plan and develops a main line that leads to something.
Not the usual engines we have today. That play chess within a Horizont of search depth.

I thought alpha zero and Leela did that. Well it seems they play with a long term plan (illusion).