29 Alpha-Beta's against Leela...

[mclane]

My brain is also doing massive amounts of calculations when I play chess, but my mind only looks onto the board without building huge search trees.
The gag is that humans do play chess with eyes seeing patterns and trajectories, while computers search into the 30-40 search today and do huge combinations out of moves to find out what humans see with their eyes. Also humans automatically see important things due to experience.

The process of learning is thinking with the backbones.
First you need to register everything with conscious, later the unconsciousness is doing the job,

[zullil]

According to Stockfish-dev, c3 and Rec8 are equivalent by transposition:

Don't think so. I have received the following output in 3-variant mode (AMD Ryzen7-2700X - 16'384 MB):

Analysis by Stockfish 280719 64 POPCNT 16CPU

1. -+ (-2.92): 24...c3 25.Sa3 Tec8 26.Sc2 Sb2 27.a3 h5 28.f3 hxg4 29.hxg4 Sc4 30.Kh2 Ta6 31.Kg3 f6 32.e4 dxe4 33.fxe4 Le8 34.d5 g5 35.Le3 Lg6 36.Lc5 Te8 37.Se3 Sxe3 38.Lxe3 c2 39.Dxc2 Txa3 40.Dc1 Td3 41.d6 Txd6 42.Lxg5 fxg5 43.Dxg5 Txe4 44.Dxb5 Tde6 45.Db7 Te3+ 46.Kf2 T3e5 47.Dc8+ Le8 48.Kg3 Te3+ 49.Kf2 T6e5 50.Db8 Te2+ 51.Kg3 Te1 52.Db6 T1e3+ 53.Kf2 Te2+ 54.Kg3 Te6 55.Dc5 T2e3+ 56.Kf2 T3e5 57.Dd4 Lc6 58.Kg3 Te3+ 59.Kh4 Le8 60.Dc4 T3e4 61.Dd5 T4e5 62.Dd8 Kg7 63.Dd4 Kf7 64.Kg3 Te4 65.Dd8 Txb4 66.Dd5 Tb5

2. -+ (-2.45): 24...Tec8 25.Sd2 c3 26.Sb3 c2 27.Sc5 Sxc5 28.dxc5 Txa2 29.Le5 d4 30.exd4 Lc6 31.d5 Lxd5 32.Dg5 f6 33.Lxf6 c1D+ 34.Dxc1 gxf6 35.Dd1 Td8 36.c6 Taa8 37.c7 Td7 38.Dd3 Tc8 39.Df5 Tcxc7 40.Dxf6 Tc6 41.Df4 Tcd6 42.Dg5+ Kf7 43.Dh5+ Kf8 44.De5 h6 45.Dh8+ Lg8 46.De5 Lc4 47.Kh2 Te6 48.Dh8+ Ke7 49.Dg7+ Kd6 50.Da1 Tf7 51.Kg3 Kd5 52.Dd1+ Kc6 53.Dh1+ Kc7 54.Da1 Tef6 55.De5+ Kd7 56.Dd4+ Ke8 57.f4 Txf4 58.Dxf4 Txf4 59.Kxf4 Kf7 60.g5 Kg6 61.gxh6

3. -/+ (-1.54): 24...Ta6 25.Sd2 h5 26.gxh5 Lf5 27.e4 Lxe4 28.Sxe4 Txe4 29.Le5 f6 30.Lb8 Tae6 31.Dc2 Te1+ 32.Kg2 T6e4 33.Kf3 Kf7 34.Lh2 Sb6 35.Kg2 T1e2 36.Dc3 T4e3 37.Dc1 Sa4 38.Kf1 Te4 39.h6 Te1+ 40.Dxe1 Txe1+ 41.Kxe1 gxh6 42.Kd2 Sb2 43.Lg3 Sd3 44.a3 Ke7 45.h4 Ke6 46.f3 h5 47.Ke3 Kf5 48.Kd2 Sf4 49.Ke3 Se6 50.Le1 Kg6 51.Lc3 Kf7 52.Ke2 Sf4+ 53.Kf1 Sd3 54.Ke2 Ke6 55.Kd2

(Depth 49 - 2:09:30 )

These are three different main lines, and they lead to three different games.
I think 24... c3 leads the fastest to the goal ( = mobilisation of the rooks as quickly as possible) and is therefore clearly the best move in this position.
In addition, it is the most interesting move here - and typical for the new AI Chess...
Greetings: Walter

.

Were endgame tables being used in this Stockfish search? The search I ran (and terminated) used 6-man tables. Perhaps this might explain our different outcomes?

[jp]

Were endgame tables being used in this Stockfish search? The search I ran (and terminated) used 6-man tables. Perhaps this might explain our different outcomes?

Yes, tablebases don't calculate. They just know.

[zullil]

Were endgame tables being used in this Stockfish search? The search I ran (and terminated) used 6-man tables. Perhaps this might explain our different outcomes?

Yes, tablebases don't calculate. They just know.

When I see Lc0 instantly settle on c3 in this position, it does seem a bit like "magic". It's easy to forget that time and energy were spent to train the network. "Knowing" never comes cheaply.

[jorose]

These are three different main lines, and they lead to three different games.
I think 24... c3 leads the fastest to the goal ( = mobilisation of the rooks as quickly as possible) and is therefore clearly the best move in this position.
In addition, it is the most interesting move here - and typical for the new AI Chess...

(...)
I'm not saying that this position is a perfect test position. I'm just claim that 24... c3 is the most efficient and interesting move in this position.
This has nothing to do with any criteria for "fast winning" in Engines.
And the most important thing is, it's a tournament move played only by AI engines, never by A/Bs.
That's my point.

I assumed "fastest to the goal" you meant fastest to winning. Fastest to mobilizing the rooks seems clearly wrong, as Rec8 is in 1 move whereas c3 and then Rec8 is in 2 moves. c3 is the more risky move as it is more commital. Both Leela and SF analysis have shown they are very close, in any case.

"only by AI engines"

As opposed to real intelligence engines? You are consistently avoiding accurate language in favor of buzzwords.

[Uri Blass]

My brain is also doing massive amounts of calculations when I play chess, but my mind only looks onto the board without building huge search trees.
The gag is that humans do play chess with eyes seeing patterns and trajectories, while computers search into the 30-40 search today and do huge combinations out of moves to find out what humans see with their eyes. Also humans automatically see important things due to experience.

The process of learning is thinking with the backbones.
First you need to register everything with conscious, later the unconsciousness is doing the job,

Alpha beta chess engines do not search 30-40 plies in order to find out what humans see with their eyes but in order to find out more than what humans see with their eyes.

[zullil]

My brain is also doing massive amounts of calculations when I play chess, but my mind only looks onto the board without building huge search trees.
The gag is that humans do play chess with eyes seeing patterns and trajectories, while computers search into the 30-40 search today and do huge combinations out of moves to find out what humans see with their eyes. Also humans automatically see important things due to experience.

The process of learning is thinking with the backbones.
First you need to register everything with conscious, later the unconsciousness is doing the job,

Alpha beta chess engines do not search 30-40 plies in order to find out what humans see with their eyes but in order to find out more than what humans see with their eyes.

Well, sometimes. Always remember B. Bauer's contribution:

[d]rk6/p1r3p1/P3B1Kp/1p2B3/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
I can easily find mate-in-5 "by eye", but Stockfish-dev (with default settings) needs depth 71 and about 81 billion nodes of search.

[mclane]

My brain is also doing massive amounts of calculations when I play chess, but my mind only looks onto the board without building huge search trees.
The gag is that humans do play chess with eyes seeing patterns and trajectories, while computers search into the 30-40 search today and do huge combinations out of moves to find out what humans see with their eyes. Also humans automatically see important things due to experience.

The process of learning is thinking with the backbones.
First you need to register everything with conscious, later the unconsciousness is doing the job,

Alpha beta chess engines do not search 30-40 plies in order to find out what humans see with their eyes but in order to find out more than what humans see with their eyes.

Yes but they run around without any plan,
They do enormous amounts of lines of play but have no clue what to do,
That’s the reason the draw rate is increasing and increasing. Also most programs are clones of other programs, they make so many draws.

Where is it good for ??

What is the sense of all this computation if the engines have no clue about chess ?

They do lines that maybe won’t lose material in 30 plies.
But it’s not the target of chess not to lose material.
The target of chess is to mate.

Or do you know any fide rule that says the player with more material wins the game ??
The player who mates wins the game,
Or if the opponent has fallen asleep or dead or time out or resigns or it is technical draw or whatever,
But there is no rule that says you win if your 30 plies search makes you win a pawn.

What the programs make is finding moves.
They are not finding intelligent plans.
They have none.

[zullil]

My brain is also doing massive amounts of calculations when I play chess, but my mind only looks onto the board without building huge search trees.
The gag is that humans do play chess with eyes seeing patterns and trajectories, while computers search into the 30-40 search today and do huge combinations out of moves to find out what humans see with their eyes. Also humans automatically see important things due to experience.

The process of learning is thinking with the backbones.
First you need to register everything with conscious, later the unconsciousness is doing the job,

Alpha beta chess engines do not search 30-40 plies in order to find out what humans see with their eyes but in order to find out more than what humans see with their eyes.

Yes but they run around without any plan,
They do enormous amounts of lines of play but have no clue what to do,
That’s the reason the draw rate is increasing and increasing. Also most programs are clones of other programs, they make so many draws.

Where is it good for ??

What is the sense of all this computation if the engines have no clue about chess ?

They do lines that maybe won’t lose material in 30 plies.
But it’s not the target of chess not to lose material.
The target of chess is to mate.

Or do you know any fide rule that says the player with more material wins the game ??
The player who mates wins the game,
Or if the opponent has fallen asleep or dead or time out or resigns or it is technical draw or whatever,
But there is no rule that says you win if your 30 plies search makes you win a pawn.

What the programs make is finding moves.
They are not finding intelligent plans.
They have none.

And how are NN engines different? They don't "make plans" either. Roughly, they do "image processing on chess positions" (massive computations), to select positions that training has shown them to be "good".

[jorose]

Yes but they run around without any plan,
They do enormous amounts of lines of play but have no clue what to do,
That’s the reason the draw rate is increasing and increasing. Also most programs are clones of other programs, they make so many draws.

Where is it good for ??

What is the sense of all this computation if the engines have no clue about chess ?

They do lines that maybe won’t lose material in 30 plies.
But it’s not the target of chess not to lose material.
The target of chess is to mate.

Or do you know any fide rule that says the player with more material wins the game ??
The player who mates wins the game,
Or if the opponent has fallen asleep or dead or time out or resigns or it is technical draw or whatever,
But there is no rule that says you win if your 30 plies search makes you win a pawn.

What the programs make is finding moves.
They are not finding intelligent plans.
They have none.

Are you talking about top level human chess? Grand chess tour just had its second consecutive round without a decisive game. I guess top humans also play without plans?

Engines are designed to play the highest level of moves possible from the variety of positions reached from reasonable play. They don't care if this level of play is reached in a way that matches your aesthetics or not. Very clearly these programs play much better than you or I or anyone else for that matter.