Here is a chessbase article that might help:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/hartmann-choosing-a-chess-engine
Here is a chessbase article that might help:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/hartmann-choosing-a-chess-engine
A computer uses something called TREES. It looks at a move (in milliseconds) and checks out all the possible replies from the opponent. It does this continuously throughout the game.
AND believe it or not, as powerful as chess computers are, they will NEVER solve chess.
There are more combinations for a chess game than there are ATOMS in the known UNIVERSE....yes you heard that right.
I am fine with the zillions of calculations. But in the end, the computer is choosing the best of these positions based on human judgments. No one really plays just against "the computer." Those games are actually computer+human vs human. Of course we lose!
I am fine with the zillions of calculations. But in the end, the computer is choosing the best of these positions based on human judgments. No one really plays just against "the computer." Those games are actually computer+human vs human. Of course we lose!
LeelaChess is 100% computer so we really do play human vs computer
AlphaZero reinvented everything with no other input than the rules.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2111.09259.pdf
Does it judge based on human discoveries, like "black is two points up," or "white has a queenside majority" or similar such judgements that humans have figured out?
A true computer vs human contest would have the computer programmed with the rules of chess, and only the rules. Then give it some time to play against itself. The computer would need Artificial Intelligence, of course, to develop its strategies, but would be given nothing from the 500 years of human learning. If indeed Rook=5 and Bishop=3, a good computer should be able to figure that out for itself.