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

[Tony P.]

So you have no rule proposal? How do you expect to create a program without a good idea?

The recent advances in 'learning to plan' (aka 'reward shaping' in reinforcement learning) suggest that it makes sense to let an engine learn the rule in an unsupervised or self-supervised fashion, so it's okay not to have a ready answer or even make sure that the answer be explainable to humans (cf. Alpha Zero's policy head, Winter's move classifier).

That said, I personally wouldn't make the engine eliminate 'seemingly pointless' moves completely; I'd just make it reduce them and extend those that 'follow a plan derived from the static positional features' after searching the 'low-hanging fruit' tactical moves. That would be LMR but with more advanced move ordering.

[mclane]

Is it important to play perfect ?! No.
Do you play perfect ? No.

So why should the engine do it ?!

Believe me, an engine that can oversee something makes more fun.

Try it out yourself. Play versus david Broughtons Philidor and you understand.

[Collingwood]

Is it important to play perfect ?! No.
Do you play perfect ? No.

So why should the engine do it ?!

So just play humans then.

[mclane]

The idea of AI is to create artificial intelligence.
Machine chess is something different.
It’s brutal Strong, but not intelligent.

Question is indeed what you want.

A machine that plays like a human, or a machine that plays like a machine.

I prefer a machine that plays like a human.

I find machine chess boring because it’s obvious that the machine has no idea what a plan is or what beauty is.
The machine computes 10 million NPS, reaches ply 45 and makes a move that wins some points more.
But if you would ask the machine what the sense of chess is, it would have no clue.

The sense of chess is NOT to win but to mate.

And it is especially not to win by increasing the Evaluation by a few points until the opponent has fallen asleep.

Many engines do not play chess. They solve positions, and if they cannot find something forced, they choose the move that increases the score by a small margin. This is NOT chess,

When people complain in machine chess age the amount of draws increases overall, it has not to do with the fact that chess is draw.
But that machines have no plan. They do not plan to mate the king.
They solve the position, and if there is no move that is mate, they choose a move that increases the evaluation.
So a blind plays another blind. And as a result the draws in machine chess increase.

No ideas. No beauty. No art of chess.
Plain boring moves.
Boring games, machine chess,



Artificial intelligence in chess is to make the machine create beautiful games and try to mate the opponent king with all material that is there and with all creativity the machine can generate,


LC0 shows this intelligence in games versus normal AB engines,

[Madeleine Birchfield]

The idea of AI is to create artificial intelligence.
Machine chess is something different.
It’s brutal Strong, but not intelligent.

Question is indeed what you want.

A machine that plays like a human, or a machine that plays like a machine.

I prefer a machine that plays like a human.

I find machine chess boring because it’s obvious that the machine has no idea what a plan is or what beauty is.
The machine computes 10 million NPS, reaches ply 45 and makes a move that wins some points more.
But if you would ask the machine what the sense of chess is, it would have no clue.

The sense of chess is NOT to win but to mate.

And it is especially not to win by increasing the Evaluation by a few points until the opponent has fallen asleep.

Many engines do not play chess. They solve positions, and if they cannot find something forced, they choose the move that increases the score by a small margin. This is NOT chess,

When people complain in machine chess age the amount of draws increases overall, it has not to do with the fact that chess is draw.
But that machines have no plan. They do not plan to mate the king.
They solve the position, and if there is no move that is mate, they choose a move that increases the evaluation.
So a blind plays another blind. And as a result the draws in machine chess increase.

No ideas. No beauty. No art of chess.
Plain boring moves.
Boring games, machine chess,



Artificial intelligence in chess is to make the machine create beautiful games and try to mate the opponent king with all material that is there and with all creativity the machine can generate,


LC0 shows this intelligence in games versus normal AB engines,

Are Stockfish 12 and Nemorino 6 machine chess engines or artificial intelligence? Both use neural networks for evaluation, which are usually associated with artificial intelligence, but regular A/B techniques for search and move ordering which are usually associated with 'machine chess'.

[mclane]

I see no real difference in playing style of stockfish 12 with net,
It plays maybe Stronger. But not different.

Is it artificial intelligence that the engine is 60 elo stronger ?
Is ELO the method to measure intelligence?
I doubt that very much,

[Tony P.]

Just out of curiosity: if an engine is released that asks you once in a while about a game or move it's just played, 'Are you entertained?', and adjusts its style parameters automatically by analyzing your feedback, will you be happy to use it?

[mclane]

Maybe. Difficult to answer in theory. My judgement is very fuzzy. Not 100% fact. Very subjective. I try to write it down to give you a shallow opinion.
I would like to see many human like chess engines in different styles:
Tal, fischer, karpov, kasparov, Capablanca, lasker, Emil josef Diemer...

[Tony P.]

It's a great idea to let the user sculpt many different styles (or start from presets resembling past human masters), thanks for the remark

[Paloma]

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

How do you program "beautiful" ?