True, but we can at the very least teach a computer to prune what are effectively unreachable positions or openings that won't happen at a basic level let alone high level or GM level play.

For example, I don't think I've ever seen or will ever see: 1. a3 a6 2. h3 h6

The computer should be given the logic in which to solve chess by telling it right off the bat to not search through certain lines or openings because they are effectively useless.

▲

jibal 7 days ago | parent [-]

You think no one has done that? Aside from explicitly encoding book lines, NN weights developed over millions of games steer chess engines away from useless lines.

But if you don't explore a line, even if you believe it's effectively useless, then you haven't solved chess.

P.S.

> I don't think I've ever seen or will ever see: 1. a3 a6 2. h3 h6

I have. Children and other beginners often do play like this. And even at GM levels we've seen nonsense like the Bongcloud and, marginally less nonsensically, the Cow opening.

	▲	NickC25 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		>But if you don't explore a line, even if you believe it's effectively useless, then you haven't solved chess. That's actually a good point because ideas that modern GMs found to be useless (in particular, locking a wing down via aggressive early wing play) have actually found a new home in AlphaZero's play. What might be completely dumb from an early move (say, aggressively pushing the F pawn from the start) might provide to be an incredible opening, but humans are too stupid to be able to execute it perfectly.