12

It's still one of the best moves White can play. There's no clear consensus on whether 1.e4 or 1.d4 is better, but it's played frequently at the top level. Due to advancements in theory, I'd say 1.e4 isn't regarded quite as highly as it was in the past, but again it's most likely White's best/second best move. Advancements in AI aren't really affecting ...


5

This is known as Quiescence Search. https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Quiescence+Search The purpose of this search is to only evaluate "quiet" positions, or positions where there are no winning tactical moves to be made. This search is needed to avoid the horizon effect. Simply stopping your search when you reach the desired depth and then ...


5

I can see more than one reason for that. One reason is that after a check there are very few moves available: usually there are 30 moves available, but after a check there are usually at most 4 or 5. So that move doesn't count as a full ply if you want to measure the size of the resulting tree, and in the same search time you can go deeper. Another ...


5

No. AI has not changed the evaluation of 1pe4. AI is too limited to be able to see far enough into the game to evaluate the first move that accurately. Best you can do is estimate it even with AI. The best we can do ourselves is look at top GM results. At the highest levels it gives white 9% more wins but over 50% draws. Net scoring white to black is 55% to ...


5

Since 1.e4 and 1.d4 are considered equal by most experts, the value will really depend on your style: If you are a tactical player, you are more likely to get the types of positions that you favor. I am older, and a positional player, so I play 1.d4 for the same reason: I tend to get more positional games, and I am a pretty good positional player. Whether ...


4

For early versions, the lczero project's download page refers you to the lc0 releases available on GitHub. For versions from 2018, you can go the lczero repository on GitHub. Note that while the downloads from from the former repository (lc0) provide both Windows builds and source code, the older releases from 2018 (lczero) give you only source code that you ...


3

Chess engines consist of two prongs of code: search and eval. Search is the algorithm that tells the engine which moves to look at, "searching" through the game tree to find the most promising continuation. Eval is the code that says, given this position and without making any moves, how good is this position for us? Stockfish uses Alpha-Beta ...


3

There are two simple adjustments that need to be made for this to work properly with the computer playing the white pieces. I'm not totally familiar with the interfaces you're using so bear with me. while not board.is_game_over(): if board.turn == True: This if statement is used to determine at which point the computer starts evaluating moves and at ...


3

I think one of the reasons humanity continues to play gams that computers will always win at is that chess is a useful tool to inprove critical thinking skills, such as pattern recognition and analysis of consequences. No matter how good at chess computers become, and even if chess is one day solved, humans can learn the game and still enjoy it, not to be ...


2

Most probably a wide majority of cooked puzzles from history are already within the grasp of today's computers (and even of computers from, say, 2005), and that's why new softwares shouldn't bring any major changes, but it doesn't mean that they wouldn't bring some marginal corrections. A funny example is given by Tim Krabbé in entry 324, "A cooked, correct ...


2

Our modern chess engines are already perfect for solving tactical puzzles. @Bad_Bishop's example is an easy problem for Stockfish. If you're talking about artificial deep chess problems (not puzzles), even AlphaZero might have problems. Some chess engines (e.g. Houdini) has a "tactic" mode for those problems. No. Nothing much will change with stronger ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible