Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 04:15:59 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 00:41:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 07, 2000 at 09:33:56, Joe Besogn wrote: > >>On November 06, 2000 at 10:41:01, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>On November 06, 2000 at 09:58:56, Joe Besogn wrote: >>> >>>>You are, imo, running round in circles due to the usual reasons of vested >>>>interests, but also because you argue without even a basic understanding of the >>>>terminology. >>>> >>>>Try: http://cgi.student.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/d95-aeh/get/kuhneng >>>> >>>>for a concise description of Kuhn's ideas in the "History of Scientific >>>>Revolutions". >>>> >>>>Then, perhaps, there might be some interest in reading what you have to say on >>>>the subject amongst the more enlightened. >>>> >>>>The descriptions in the article, imo, almost exactly mirror actions and progress >>>>within computer chess. That's imo. >>>> >>>>Although you are unlikely to reach agreement on new/old paradigms, existence of, >>>>or whatever, at least you'll have some new agreement on what words mean. That >>>>helps. >>>> >>>>Also useful for you will be the realisation that a paradigm is not a 'chess >>>>playing computer program', but a 'system of thought'. The fact that it is >>>>possible to take a conventional chess program and apply new ideas to it, does >>>>not mean that a paradigm shift has not taken place. The revolutionary shift is >>>>in 'ways of thinking' or in 'world view' - rather more difficult than changing >>>>code. The paradigm shift, therefore, is in you, in your own head. Some make this >>>>shift faster than others, one revolutionary starts it off, some see it soon, >>>>some see it later, some never see it at all. The ones that don't see it, deny it >>>>exists. The ones that do see it, say "you need to think different". The ones who >>>>see it late claim "it's evolutionary, I could do that". >>>> >>>>Why do I always try to help them ?! >>> >>>Hi. >>>You are right that sharper definitions of words helps, but not so much and not >>>always is neccesary, anyway. There is room, in a casual debate as those >>>performed here, to some fuzzy logic. I think every one here -or almost- knows >>>how radical a "paradigm" is, but nevertheless we all understand that, when >>>Thorsten uses it here, he is just referring to a more modest thing: a new way >>>to understand how to program certain functions of a chess program. In that sense >>>the word is useful and it would be a kind of pedantry to argue againts him on >>>the base of the exact definition of what a paradigm is. Besides, to define words >>>tends only to open another field of debate instead of solving it. >> >> >> >>>How much >>>radical a new way of thought has to be to be a paradigm? >> >>Powerful question. It has to be a new way of thought. In itself the new way of >>thought does not need to be so earth-shattering. Often it is a >>why-didn't-I-think-of-that or how-obvious or whatever. Einstein only questioned >>the idea that velocity vectors could be added together without limit. His >>theories flew from the simple-to-us-now idea that there was an upper limit on >>the speed of light and on information transfer. >> >>You use the word "radical". Isn't this the key? You imply the paradigm shift is >>political, and personal - which it is. Paradigms arise because humans do >>science. Science itself is an idea-theory-test-creation builder. Without >>personalities, empires, vested interest, humans - science could develop 'freely' >>- where every idea comes on its merits, where the how and why gets questioned, >>where no idea gains status attached to a book or a figurehead, where all ideas >>are equal, where teaching and student material is not restricted to any one >>dominant; except this is out of the question - we're humans. Humans make >>paradigms. How hard they fight for the old or the new, how much they invested, >>their personality, their politics, their assumptions, the things they didn't >>think of, how long they spent on it - these quantise your "radical". >> >>If I had to pick one technical assumption of the old paradigm which is turned on >>its head by the new - I'ld pick the concept of quiescence. The old paradigm says >>search to quiescence, then evaluate the 'simple' quiet position, don't stop the >>search in the unclear. The new paradigm says drive into the unclear and evaluate >>with knowledge. Unclear is a good place for the new paradigm, it's a killer for >>the old. >> >>Radical? It was said to be impossible. AFAIK the argument lasted (lasts) five >>years now, since 1995. First is was impossible as per Botwinnik. Not just >>impossible, he was smeared as a fraud. Later it was said, ok it's possible, but >>it doesn't work on a win/lose results basis - this was the anti-CSTal argument. >>Now it is said, maybe it's possible, but it's nothing new - the anti-Tiger >>argument. Or it still isn't possible - you lose in the endgame - another >>anti-Tiger argument. It could have been evolutionary, if different assumptions >>held. But they didn't. So it became political and personal. And radical. The >>chief proponents of the old paradigm tried to 'own' computer chess. They'ld been >>there, done that, could have done that, did that and proved it didn't work, worn >>the tee-shirt, read the book, bought the record. They knew it all. And stuck to >>it. For years. >> >>Hence the shift is radical, revolutionary, even. Because of the participants. > > > > >What you are actually saying here is that Bob is the guy who has helped us to >notice that Gambit Tiger a new paradigm? Gambit Tiger is not a new paradigm, Gambit Tiger is a computer chess playing program. Christophe Theron wrote Gambit Tiger, Christophe Theron's world view, thought system is (part of) a paradigm. Christophe Theron's Gambit Tiger, through its results, forced the forces of computer chess conservatism (led by Dr Bob Hyatt) to defend their world view. > >By his compulsory need to belittle the value of speculative evaluations It is unfortunate that much of the 'defence' has to be carried out in zero-sum mode. As the old paradigm is weakened, the conservatives are less and less able to point to their achievements, and more and more resort to defending themselves by attacking their revolutionary opponents. You have called this 'belittling' or 'humiliating'. They can only believe that a 'hit' on the new ideas, or on an individual that stands for the new ideas, or on an artifact produced by the new thought, is a corresponding 'gain' for them. and >categorize Gambit Tiger into the "old paradigm" by any way (when everybody with >a brain out there is able to recognize that GT plays both differently AND >strong)? Again GT is a program, not a paradigm !! However, GT is an anomoly to the system. CSTal was an anomoly to the system. Botwinnik was an anomoly to the system. The system fights each one of these in turn: They said: Botwinnik has no program and is a fraud. Therefore the idea doesn't work. We don't need to consider it. We can carry on as usual. They said: CSTal is a program but its win/loss rate is not enough and its programmer is a trouble-maker. Therefore the idea doesn't work. We don't need to consider it. We can carry on as usual. They say: GT is a program, its win/loss rate is unclear but close, it is not much different to our program. Therefore if it works, it is our idea, because we own computer chess and all ideas in it. We can carry on as usual. > >That's maybe indeed a way to detect new things. The establishement is indeed >always very afraid of new ideas, and especially when they are strong. > Yes. It was necessary for the new idea to be represented in a way that could be quantised by their system of measurement (win/loss rate). Well done. Only then would they begin to see the anomolies in their system of thought. They had to have the ground removed from under their feet before they saw it. It is not clear even now that they see it. No amount of telling them, for years and years, made any difference. The paradigms were on different planets, and only now do they, some of them, see it. You would think eminent professors would lead such profound changes, but instead they appear to do everything they can to hinder them. To return to your question: >What you are actually saying here is that Bob is the guy who has helped us to >notice that Gambit Tiger a new paradigm? There is a new paradigm, because developers have changed their thought in revolutionary ways. Old ideas have been turned on their heads (most obviously the drive-into-the-fog idea vs. q-search). This shift in thought could have been assimilated relatively painlessly, it would still have been seen as revolutionary, and it will lead to revolutionary new artifacts and further normal-science developments from now on - because it is now becoming normal-science (despite some kicking still from the conservatives). Bob's resistance over several years has made it a very tortuous process, the resistance held back computer chess development by 3-4 years imo, and his resistance increases the scale and importance of the revolutionary idea. That's something he will have to deal with for himself. > > > > Christophe > > > > > > >>What happens to the technology, chess programs, is (will) also be revolutionary. >>They will play chess, not checkers. They will have knowledge to take on GMs. >>They won't appear to play 3000 tactical and 1700 positional. Ratings won't be >>important, and won't be seen to be important. Nobody will buy them because >>they'll be too powerful. And a host of things unforeseen. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Exception made of some >>>clear cases -copernican vs tolomean astronomical vision- the issue ios tricky >>>anyway. >>>Regards >>>Fernando
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.