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

[mclane]

In 1981 david Broughton won the championship title with a b strategy engine MKV.
In 1984 thomas nitsche und Elmar Henne won the championship title with mephisto III S Glasgow.

Both engines were highly interesting.

Commercial products but completely different methods like the other AB programs,

[syzygy]

In 1981 david Broughton won the championship title with a b strategy engine MKV.
In 1984 thomas nitsche und Elmar Henne won the championship title with mephisto III S Glasgow.

Both engines were highly interesting.

Commercial products but completely different methods like the other AB programs,

Let's get you started.

You want to write a Shannon Type B program. Such a program does a regular tree search but, at each node, only searches a subset of the available moves. This means that it must somehow decide, without searching, which moves to eliminate from consideration.

To do this, a program needs a rule by which it can decide whether to eliminate a move or to keep a move. What kind of rule would you propose?

[corres]

In 1981 david Broughton won the championship title with a b strategy engine MKV.
In 1984 thomas nitsche und Elmar Henne won the championship title with mephisto III S Glasgow.

Both engines were highly interesting.

Commercial products but completely different methods like the other AB programs,

Let's get you started.

You want to write a Shannon Type B program. Such a program does a regular tree search but, at each node, only searches a subset of the available moves. This means that it must somehow decide, without searching, which moves to eliminate from consideration.

To do this, a program needs a rule by which it can decide whether to eliminate a move or to keep a move. What kind of rule would you propose?

The ruling program would be the Stockfish...
(What is rather guffaw.)

[corres]

I would call b strategy the educated guess.
Why do programmers continue to make chess programs perfect when they begin a new engine ?
Isn’t it more interesting to create interesting engines instead of engine that lose to stockfish ?
Whatever you try out , it is losing against Stockfish or LC0.
And in the moment you reach the same strength, it’s clear you almost clones them.
Instead I would create a different path because at the top there is no space anymore.
I would create an engine that is different.

The power of chess programs are determined by the power of the hardware. In every case those programs are the most stronger what utilize the the most best mode of the power of hardware. The chess power and the power of hardware is not separable from each others.
If somebody want to create a new type of strong chess program he needs to find for it a new powerful hardware platform as it happened in the case of NN engines.

You missed his point. He doesn't care how *strong* it is, only that is "feels" like a human when you play against it (planning, not a complete tactical monster, makes small mistakes and so on).

Anybody can write a bad chess program, even you too.
But maybe I am too optimistic about you.

[BrendanJNorman]

I would call b strategy the educated guess.
Why do programmers continue to make chess programs perfect when they begin a new engine ?
Isn’t it more interesting to create interesting engines instead of engine that lose to stockfish ?
Whatever you try out , it is losing against Stockfish or LC0.
And in the moment you reach the same strength, it’s clear you almost clones them.
Instead I would create a different path because at the top there is no space anymore.
I would create an engine that is different.

The power of chess programs are determined by the power of the hardware. In every case those programs are the most stronger what utilize the the most best mode of the power of hardware. The chess power and the power of hardware is not separable from each others.
If somebody want to create a new type of strong chess program he needs to find for it a new powerful hardware platform as it happened in the case of NN engines.

You missed his point. He doesn't care how *strong* it is, only that is "feels" like a human when you play against it (planning, not a complete tactical monster, makes small mistakes and so on).

Anybody can write a bad chess program, even you too.
But maybe I am too optimistic about you.

Deep.

How old are you again?

[mclane]

In 1981 david Broughton won the championship title with a b strategy engine MKV.
In 1984 thomas nitsche und Elmar Henne won the championship title with mephisto III S Glasgow.

Both engines were highly interesting.

Commercial products but completely different methods like the other AB programs,

Let's get you started.

You want to write a Shannon Type B program. Such a program does a regular tree search but, at each node, only searches a subset of the available moves. This means that it must somehow decide, without searching, which moves to eliminate from consideration.

To do this, a program needs a rule by which it can decide whether to eliminate a move or to keep a move. What kind of rule would you propose?

A Shannon b program is like climbing a mountain without any rope.
One mistake and you fall...

Which method to decide which moves to eliminate:

http://www.aifactory.co.uk/newsletter/2 ... _chess.htm

http://aifactory.co.uk/newsletter/2014_ ... inimax.htm

[syzygy]

In 1981 david Broughton won the championship title with a b strategy engine MKV.
In 1984 thomas nitsche und Elmar Henne won the championship title with mephisto III S Glasgow.

Both engines were highly interesting.

Commercial products but completely different methods like the other AB programs,

Let's get you started.

You want to write a Shannon Type B program. Such a program does a regular tree search but, at each node, only searches a subset of the available moves. This means that it must somehow decide, without searching, which moves to eliminate from consideration.

To do this, a program needs a rule by which it can decide whether to eliminate a move or to keep a move. What kind of rule would you propose?

A Shannon b program is like climbing a mountain without any rope.
One mistake and you fall...

It is like walking into a cliff in the dark. As I said, blindly.

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

[mclane]

In 1981 david Broughton won the championship title with a b strategy engine MKV.
In 1984 thomas nitsche und Elmar Henne won the championship title with mephisto III S Glasgow.

Both engines were highly interesting.

Commercial products but completely different methods like the other AB programs,

Let's get you started.

You want to write a Shannon Type B program. Such a program does a regular tree search but, at each node, only searches a subset of the available moves. This means that it must somehow decide, without searching, which moves to eliminate from consideration.

To do this, a program needs a rule by which it can decide whether to eliminate a move or to keep a move. What kind of rule would you propose?

A Shannon b program is like climbing a mountain without any rope.
One mistake and you fall...

It is like walking into a cliff in the dark. As I said, blindly.

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

My job is to remind the programmers of nearly infinite stockfish clones that there is a different method possible.

The path all people walk is not the only path possible,
David Broughton and thomas Nitsche and Elmar Henne even showed that the “different” paradigm can make it to a championship title against all competitors.
So the point: it’s a senseless strategy it will never compete blablabla were refuted by them in a commercial product !!

I do on a daily basis read talkchess,
And I am disappointed to see almost each day new engines pop up, and they are all the same,
That’s very much disturbing,

[mclane]

In 1981 david Broughton won the championship title with a b strategy engine MKV.
In 1984 thomas nitsche und Elmar Henne won the championship title with mephisto III S Glasgow.

Both engines were highly interesting.

Commercial products but completely different methods like the other AB programs,

Let's get you started.

You want to write a Shannon Type B program. Such a program does a regular tree search but, at each node, only searches a subset of the available moves. This means that it must somehow decide, without searching, which moves to eliminate from consideration.

To do this, a program needs a rule by which it can decide whether to eliminate a move or to keep a move. What kind of rule would you propose?

A Shannon b program is like climbing a mountain without any rope.
One mistake and you fall...

It is like walking into a cliff in the dark. As I said, blindly.

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

If it is such a dangerous method, how were Broughton and Nitsche able to win a championship title with it against the competitors climbing the mountain with a rope in Daylight ??!!

[syzygy]

If it is such a dangerous method, how were Broughton and Nitsche able to win a championship title with it against the competitors climbing the mountain with a rope in Daylight ??!!

https://www.schach-computer.info/wiki/i ... ton,_David

I devised a scheme of selective search that was very successful. The depth of search was controlled more in relation to the kind of moves made up to that point in the tree than by an iterative search to a series of fixed depths. It was called the SX algorithm. It was written up in a journal (the name of which escapes my memory at present -- was it "Advances in Computer Chess"?) with the title "The SEX Algorithm in Computer Chess" by David Levy, David Broughton and Mark Taylor. [Wiki: It was in the ICCA-Journal, Volume 12/1 1989 (page 10-21). See parts from it on the left.].

So basically an extension/reduction scheme, which means just as much Type B as modern engines are.

Indeed:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/SEX_Algorithm

The SEX Algorithm was a proposal by David Levy, David Broughton and Mark Taylor to apply fractional extensions and reductions. It was introduced in 1989 in the ICGA Journal paper The SEX Algorithm in Computer Chess (Search EXtension), applied in programs and dedicated computers developed by Intelligent Software in the 80s. Since "uninteresting moves" were decremented by up to 21 (forward moves) or 24 (backward moves), and the depth increment of the ID framework was 7 or 8, SEX implemented fractional reductions and even a kind of LMR in Cyrus 68K, considering early non-tactical moves from a evaluated sorted move list by a moderate SX decrement, and to determine the SXDEC values for its non-tactical siblings on the basis of their score differences. Forced tactical moves such as checks and captures were decremented by 3 to 7, and therefor extended by fractions of a ply, while late non-tactical moves were reduced by up to two and some fractional plies.

So a true predecessor of modern engines.