If you believe it would be needed millions of millions of NPS to play chess you are wrong.jp wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:37 amBut all programs, including NN engines, rely on "millions and millions" of operations to play very strong chess. It sounds like you think number of nodes is the correct measure of how much calculation it's doing. That's not correct. So if you think doing lots of calculations is "artificial stupidity", then all engines are artificial stupidity. Why single out SF? We can agree that all chess engines are not AI.
You can play chess with a few NPS. And you can play stronger chess with few NPS if you are an experienced GM.
What is the sense of all these millions of millions of NPS if it is not bringing chess and AI into a new step, a new level of intelligence ?
Therefore I think this approach is the wrong way.
NOT MORE NPS gives better chess.
The quality of the chosen moves must be increased. And this can (IMO) only be done if the chosen and followed NPS follow a plan.
The machine needs a plan.
In the Moment the Chess programs solve test suites.
For them there is no difference between solving nolot, BT2630 or colditz Test or bratko Kopec Test or a game of chess against a human Beeing.
It’s all the same solving a chess position.
And that cannot be doing chess.
To reach the next level in computerchess the machines need to create plans and search those NPS that helps to realize those plans on the chess board. It’s not important if the plan works or if the ELO is high or low.
But the machines need a plan. Otherwise they run arround like a blind man in a big city.
Of course they will find tactical combinations. And if they see a mate they will also mate.
But this is not chess.
Chess is not doing a move and hoping not to make a mistake and by change win a knight or by chance see a mate and win.
Chess is to create a plan to win the game.
Of course you can ignore this and continue to program a chess engine that increases strength from 3320 to 3325 and in a year reaching 3350.
But what is it good for ??