11/10 works
He can't implement chess AI
Nolan Brown
Grayson Murphy
>This is how people design software nowadays
Benjamin Robinson
We're not talking some luck, we're talking degrees of luck on the order of hundred billions against 1.
Adrian Watson
en.wikipedia.org
The guy you are responding to is wrong though. Computers outplaying humans is not sufficient nor necessary for a game to be solved.
Chess is not solved. Many simpler games have been.
Levi Martin
Don't sweat the details, it only needs to work once.
Parker Lewis
1. and 4. implies a "permanent brain".
2. Implies there's a single best move, but that's not possible because the evaluation is done before the opponent's move (see 4.)
Your solution is flawed and it doesn't even tackle human psychology and offers a draw in a losing position.
Jason Roberts
That's an upstream problem.
Luis Brooks
Exactlt.If chess was solved an ai could beat ubsupervised learning AlphaZero at chess but they can't. Stockfish lost
Hunter Russell
>#include chess.ai
>you fucking goddamn nooblets
>jesus christ
>why must you reinvent the wheel every goddamn fucking time
>please learn
>please
>just learn
Levi Roberts
daily reminder that chess programming has literally not made any advancements ever since IBM's deepblue
youtube.com
it's literally just
>try lots of moves
>count pieces at the end (somewhere reasonably deep in the search tree)
THATS FUCKING IT. brute force, no "intelligence" anywhere to be found.
those lazy snob chess programming monkeys doing their garbage iterative deepening "frameworks" with aggressive forward pruning and killer heuristics can suck a DICK.
chess has a laughable branching factor and a trivial evaluation function, it's LITERALLY tictactoe-tier AI development.
Im glad those stupid gits got BEE TEE EFF Oh'd by alphazero. they have done nothing to advance computer science, just literally using 30 year old algorithms over and over and patting themselves on the back on how many positions their modern computers can mindlessly crunch in a millisecond.