Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 09:32:17 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
Kuhn: It is not possible to compare paradigms, according to him. They are so different that argumentation between them is rendered impossible. For example, different phenomena are seen as important to explain, making it impossible to objectively say which one is better. He even goes so far as to say that the adherents of different paradigms live in different worlds. I read your reply and your post at the top of the postings list. From my point of view, of course not yours, I find your postings agressive, rude, ad hominem. I am not trying to insult you, merely telling you that on my world this is how you come across. From your world view, you obviously think something similar in reverse. I see no purpose in arguing with you, as Kuhn says, "They are so different that argumentation between them is rendered impossible." I am also aware that discussion with you would be one-sided, since you, or your friends, have censorship power; which you've proved to be not afraid of using. If you want to delete the ability of this account to express its opinions, then that is up to you. n November 08, 2000 at 12:05:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 08, 2000 at 09:28:14, Joe Besogn wrote: > >>On November 08, 2000 at 07:39:24, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 2000 at 06:28:54, Joe Besogn wrote: >>> >>>>>Just replace amerindian's bows and arrows with nuclear bombs, leave them alone >>>>>for a while, then come back and ask them what they think about the efficiency of >>>>>this new tool. >>>>> >>>>>Oops... There is nobody left to answer. They had the choice to use the bombs to >>>>>hunt (and nuke themselves), or to die from starvation. >>>>> >>>>>Just a remark about the different ways to view things. :) >>> >>>if Gorbatschow would not have changed paradigms, >>>(the americans would never have done this ! they still live in >>>a paradigm where Russians are their main danger and communism >>>is the devil ! - for americans the paradigm changes have not been happened, >>>but here in europe, the paradigm change in politics has been done succesfully.) >>>we would still live in a cold war, with 2 berlins, 2 germanys and >>>the rockets on the left and on the right side. >>>in the moment the americans give up to boycott cuba, they show that >>>they got an idea about paradigm change. so far - no progress. >>> >>> >>>>Quite so. To draw on Kuhn's ideas .... >>> >>>>Fernando was doing 'normal science' - and was arguing on the more-is-better, >>>>bigger-is-better basis (nukes more effective than bows and arrows). >>> >>>right. >>> >>>>Christophe feels the revolutionary space is growing, so he fills it a little >>>>more. >>> >>>:-) >>> >>>>Just drawing parallels. >>> >>>IMO many people don't understand that gambit-tiger is different >>>than other programs, like cstal was different in its time. >> >>Yes. They are in a trap set by the old paradigm. Results trap. They only notice >>a thing if it has more ELO points than another thing. >> >>You were different, you looked closely at the thing itself. >> >>They looked at results-of-the-thing, you looked at the thing. Plus you thought >>in another framework in any case. >> >>So you saw very fast, they had to wait five years. > >Your credibility would go _up_ as your anonymous usage goes _down_. > >Do you always go around patting yourself on the back? It seems to be both >(a) boring and (b) implying that everyone here is stupid enough that they can't >tell who you really are. Do you _really_ believe that? Or have they perfected >cloning over there so that there really _are_ two of you to make these >comments less abnormal? > > > >> >>> >>>it trusts its evaluations, and the very efficient search gambit-tiger >>>has, makes its IDEAS so powerful that it can easily win >>>to country-championships en passant. >> >>Yes. The IDEA. If they wait for the results-of-the-idea then they are blinded by >>themselves. >> >>The idea was with Botwinnik, but he never made a program, only a program on >>paper; then with CSTal, the idea was there for all to see, but they only >>looked-at-results and said the programmer never offered anything constructive; >>then with Tiger - the anomoly to disprove the old paradigm was there all along, >>but it had to jump up and bite them before they noticed. Tiger bites !!! > > >Yet another that is claiming that Tiger "drives into the fog without being >able to see" eh? I don't believe that anybody here is stupid enough to think >that Tiger is patterned after CSTal. Thorsten may believe, but more because >he is a CSTal zealot, rather than being stupid. He _wants_ to believe, whether >it is true or not. > > > >> >>If they looked at CSTal, if they listened, they'ld have seen that ALL moves at >>the root were scored, scores broken into components, all to two places of >>decimals. The entire evaluation algorithm was there for all to see. Only they >>didn't look. It was there for five years, only they didn't look. And said the >>programmer 'never offered anything constructive'. One of them, who never let >>anyone ever see his program ever, said "he never offered anything constructive". >>Astonishing how those in another paradigm see the 'truth'. > > >This statement applies through the looking-glass as well. > >> >>> >>>christophe is very clever in combining new ideas. >>>old tiger was very strong, and aggressive. that was the reason the >>>old tiger was a beast when it first appeared in the scene. >>>but by tuning and tuning, old tiger (that is now version 13) >>>lost some strength. christophe wanted to make it more accurate, >>>and this completely stopped tiger from playing its own game. >> >>Yes, this is an effect of the new paradigm. More 'accuracy' doesn't help. > >Right. Follow the "fog". Until you end up in a 20-car pile-up. > > > >> >>> >>>but christophe, and that is his main strength IMO, is capable to >>>say: i maybe made a mistake, i have to reconsider. if i don't get >>>good results anymore, my way is maybe wrong. i have to try out >>>the new way. i have often realized how pragmatic christophe >>>is when it comes to changes in tiger. this is rare IMO. >> >>Yes. Partly. All programmers are very pragmatic. Pragmatism is the driving force >>in normal science. It is pragmatism that causes them to hill-climb. > >It also leads to evolutionary improvements as well as revolutionary changes. >Nothing wrong with being practical. I don't _need_ to stick my hand into a >5kw laser to see what will happen. I _know_ beforehand. And I can continue >typing as a result. > > >> >>Christophe's strength was that he was prepared to ask the how and why and to try >>another hill. To his surprise it worked, as it will work for the others. His >>strength was his ability to reassess what he was doing. To ask the questions the >>others didn't think of. >> >> >>>most chess programmers are afraid to change their child. >>>especially when it is very strong. they only tune. >>>little by little. >> >>Yes, exactly. So always they stay on the SAME hill. > > >There are lots of known ways to leave local maxima. Pick up any good AI >book. You don't have to _stay_ on one. > > >> >>>christophe made a new engine, and combined all his experience so far >>>into it, and IMO he also learned from cstal-way and that you have >>>to CONTROL the game, with initiative. >> >>We don't know what were Christophe's sources. He may never have even had a copy >>of CSTal. But that wasn't important, he ony had to be open to the ideas behind >>it. And these ideas were 'open-source', spoken about many times. Likely he >>didn't even consciously think of CSTal, but, when his surprising results came >>from his act of daring, he already had the language, the words, to help form his >>ideas. >> >>It was the idea and the language that was important. He needed the concept >>"bean-counter", he needed the concept "drive into the fog", because these helped >>his brain wrap around his new thoughts. Words, Thorsten, words, very powerful >>things. > > ><sigh> an old, worn-out metaphor (drive into the fog). I suppose your >idea is supported by Elvis _and_ space aliens? You seem to think others >don't 'speculate'. That shows just how wrong you are. Maybe they don't >speculate _as much_. _yet_. But maybe they are also striving for balance >between speculation and accuracy. > > >> >> >> something the old tiger 11.2 >>>had at the paderborn-tournament, when shredder (as clever+smart) and nimzo >>>and comet and gandalf and and and first met, and chess-tiger 11.2 made >>>the 3rd rank. >>> >>>IMO the main fight is between stefan and christophe. >>>Stefan has now to compete with new ideas , with the new paradigm. >> >>Yes. As soon as the new paradigm 'works' in the measurement system of the old >>one, even though that measurement system will be junked as unimportant now, just >>as soon as it 'works', then they will all jump. They are jumping now. >> > > >I suppose you are going to take credit for every bit of speculation built into >a chess engine? And you are going to claim it all happened _after_ CSTal? > >I thought so... > > > >>> >>>in the moment stefan tries this way too, the old paradigm is lost, >>>cause when the new paradigm gets better results, and the best programs >>>choose the new way, the old concepts get forgotten - no matter how loud >>>the old wolfes (and we know they will cry for their life-work...) >>>will cry to the moon... >> >>Yes. >> >>> >>>gorbatchow had the power to change his own system ! >>>he knew HE has to do it. the same for other revolutionists. >>>sometimes you have to tear down your own system. >>>because you have seen it is not working anymore, >>>you have to change. >>>remember what jesus did in the temple ? >>>gambit - tiger is IMO such a beast. >>>it is revolutionary. the problem for the others is: >>>with cstal they were able to say: it works only 50% of the games. >>>its shit. >> >>More fool them. >> >>> >>>they cannot say the same with gambit-tiger, can they ? >> >>No. They will try. Maybe if it is a few ELO below Fritz in SSDF, they will claim >>it doesn't work, and they are ok to carry on as before !!! >> >>Sit back and watch them fight over a few ELO points now !!! >> >>>gambit-tiger will develop. christophe will make 2.0 and later 3.0 >>>and if he follows the new way, i am sure the old paradigm has nothing >>>to stop him. >> >>I am sure also. > > >I am sure also. Just I think we are sure about _different_ things. >I am sure I know who you are. One who practices the old "thou shalt tooteth >thou own horn, or verily I say unto you, it shall not be tooted." > >Please grow up and stop with the pseudo-anonymous stuff.
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.