user11629: In the old days it was possible to beat computers basically by playing slow, closed positions with weaknesses that can be exploited in the long term, beyond the calculation depth of the engine.
As far as algorithms are concerned, what has been done to improve on this weakness of computers? Or is it just the increased calculating power/depth that makes beating computers so much harder nowadays?

user70: Advances in the tactical acuity of the computer programs coupled with hardware improvements to CPU, memory, and disk storage,  plus the availability of robust opening book and endgame tables has made them all but unbeatable.
I don't know if computers have strategic "thinking", but their tactical prowess is such that it doesn't really matter.

user14079: The development of Monte-Carlo tree-search has been a key element to overcome "horizon-effect" issues for chess softwares in the mid-2000.

11629: <p>In the old days it was possible to beat computers basically by playing slow, closed positions with weaknesses that can be exploited in the long term, beyond the calculation depth of the engine.</p>

<p>As far as algorithms are concerned, what has been done to improve on this weakness of computers? Or is it just the increased calculating power/depth that makes beating computers so much harder nowadays?</p>
 70: <p>Advances in the tactical acuity of the computer programs coupled with hardware improvements to CPU, memory, and disk storage,  plus the availability of robust opening book and endgame tables has made them all but unbeatable.</p>

<p>I don't know if computers have strategic "thinking", but their tactical prowess is such that it doesn't really matter.</p>
 14079: <p>The development of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_tree_search" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Monte-Carlo tree-search</a> has been a key element to overcome "horizon-effect" issues for chess softwares in the mid-2000.</p>
