Ras wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:17 pm
Dann Corbit wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:59 pm
I think it comes from the unfortunate definition of node for NN programs. But it does make them look clever. I guess it is kind of like Rybka nodes, which had *cough*
a little fudge factor.
Maybe I should only count nodes with White to move as printed nodes and label Black's moves just as "reply nodes". That would make my engine seem twice as clever. Or even better, only counting full search nodes and disregarding Quiescence nodes because I could label the latter as part of the evaluation, not of the search.
mclane wrote: ↑
Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:09 pm
I am relating the 1802 with the 6502.
So? The MM5 was with 6502, the Glasgow with 68k. The 1802 is irrelevant for comparing these two machines.
Performance is not important.
Just a few postings ago, you pointed out that the Glasgow was a world champion, and now performance doesn't count? You're contradicting yourself.
Plus that not understanding LC0 is only half of your reasons why you imagine human thinking into that engine; the other is of course that it's a serious rival for Stockfish. At least when LC0 enjoys 20 times the raw computing power. Uhm wait, you decried engines betting on hardware.. but that's just another point where you contradict yourself.
Of course performance matters, and we did learn a lot from that. Magnus Carlsen was probably in the first generation of super-GMs who grew up with engines, and look at his style!
The program thomas nitsche made came out in 1983 first on a 6.1 MHz 1802 and later on a 8 MHz 1807,
In 1984 it participated in Glasgow in the championship,
On a 68000 MHz with wait states (rom and ram were not so fast at that time).
So thomas nitsche made the program in 1983.
Bringing out a commercial chess program in 1983 that has such a different method of Working is IMO a big success.
Especially if we consider that in Glasgow richard Lang also participated with a 68000 hardware (8 MHz) and the other competitors used 6502 with up to 6.5 at that time .
One of the participants used A strategy. The direct opposite of thomas nitsches ideas.
I do not see mephisto III as an example for a chess engine that is doing planning.
But I see it as an example of a commercial chess computer engine that used a human like approach.
This was 1983.
Today is 2020.
Hardware and Software have made almost infinite progress. It’s IMO time to start an AI approach today.
In 1983 it was difficult to do so.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....