Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 12:14:25 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 09:28:14, Joe Besogn wrote: >>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. thats a problem IMO. >You were different, you looked closely at the thing itself. I know tiger very good. since paris i have seen all kind of tiger-versions. i knew that gambit-tiger is different. in the early days after paris christophe was disapointed that he had not the success he wished he would have had, but this made him word very hard on the program and he was succesful. the first tiger version he sent me was that strong that i thought: ? whats this ? this program would have had chances to win paris ! i had to convince him a long time (he wanted to have MORE data, more results to believe the unbelievable) that its very strong. it took a while. i was so sure that i wanted to participate in a tournament with tiger. paderborn-tournament came. operating tiger was a very nice thing. but in those time tiger was a search-based program. the reason i could operate and stand it was: it played good chess ! with the gandalf-loss in the last round tiger was thrown back from first rank to number 3. christophe knew that tiger has to get more king-safety knowledge. i think christophe worked hard to put knowledge in the program. this knowledge changed the playing style. the paderborn-world-championship version played strong chess, but passive. it knew much, but did not do much. thats very sad. christophe operated or watched how his very strong program gave away points and good position for no real reason. i guess after the paris shock the paderborn shock was again a fruitful thing for christophe. he knew he had to change tiger to become a program taking the initiative. gambit-tiger was born. it plays for a plan. the plan to attack. bob said or avoked the impression that gambit-tiger is dump. and can only attack. i remember people here talk in the same way about cstal. but it is not true. not for cstal and especially not for gambit-tiger. they can both play games without any attack, and win by playing for the endgame or other stuff. maybe bob needs to make gambit-tiger down. i don't know. today the original commercial rebel-11 arrived together with rebel-tiger13, gambit-tiger, rebel-century3... from know on anybody can findout about the beast. >They looked at results-of-the-thing, you looked at the thing. Plus you thought >in another framework in any case. right. i was always interested in the HOW, the result is nice, but 1-0 is only a number and can tell you nothing about chess. bean-counting is what they do. is all they do. imagine this election in US in the moment. bean-counting. they count as long as the like their results. is USA a democracy ? in the moment it looks more like a development-country or a banana-republik. in which century do they live ?! bean counting. they count and count. and the whole day they know nothing. they don't even know who is their president. and in the same way they "examine" chess programs. they count and count and forget computerchess about. >So you saw very fast, they had to wait five years. 4.6 would say Moritz :-))) >Yes. The IDEA. If they wait for the results-of-the-idea then they are blinded by >themselves. they live for counting. do you remember sesamestreet ? the guy who counted anything ? >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 !!! right. tiger brings RESULTS. 1-0. 1-0. 1-0. 1-0. thats the language they understand :-))) >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. why should they. as bob said: he knows anything about everything in computerchess. he is godlike. how can god ever change his mind. i always thought a professor has to care about development. he has to support the fluctuation of new ideas. but this is not the case. not in science, not in computer-science. the problem is a human-problem: the are only few ones who are flexible to learn even when they are old. most humans like the idea to become a great person at age. therefore the history of science is full of examples where people with big influence STOPPED any kind of development. the special field had to wait until certain persons die, and then the development continues. but as long as certain people with big influence are alive, there is NO movement at all. its like kohl or reagan. you had to wait until they are "dead", then movement comes in. >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". do you speak about bruce ?! bobs program is open-source, you talk about bruce ?! >Astonishing how those in another paradigm see the 'truth'. :-) >>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. they still don't understand this. they still want to "solve" chess. they have no idea how to manage to make a program that plays for an idea. >>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. but christophe is different. he really say: oh - i was mistaken this way, i have to reevaluate and later comes with new point of view. that is very rare IMO. he has no problem to say: i was mistaken here, i will now try another idea. >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. if they try. but i believe they HAVE to try because otherwise they cannot win against gambit-tiger1.0 and later versions. The problem is the following: bob and all the people of the old paradigm have done much for computerchess. without them todays chess programs would not be that strong. but - that was yesterday. todays chess programs have to make another step. into another direction. otherwise the quality of computerchess will not increase. programs have to learn how to get initiative. you could see this in the fight kramnik-kasparov. kramnik had the initiative. only his problem was the CSTal problem: kramnik had the good position but was unable to win them against kasparov. it is different with tiger. tiger has a fast-search, + new ideas. cstal was too slow. it would have needed a new build from the scratch. >His >strength was his ability to reassess what he was doing. To ask the questions the >others didn't think of. right. >>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. right. >>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 only 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. right. it was common sense suddenly. a few years ago, it wasn't. >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. maybe christophe was able to deal with it because he is coming from france. there is a saying: "driving like god in france". when i sit in a citroen, and it waves arround, you get a feeling what is meant with savoir vivre, drinking a good wine, eating good and fresh food, and living enjoyable with girls. i mean: that is what comes from france. good wine, good food, cars that drive like a flying carpet or "god on earth", the the relaxed feeling of a culture that knows how to deal with live and girls. >> 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. we will see. its interesting. happy new millennium ! >>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. i wonder why they cry. they have given computerchess such a lot over all the years. they have IMO nothing to lose. if they would change themselves with the new development, there would be no problem at all. >>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 !!! :-))) pah - fritz. an ape on a rocket... >Sit back and watch them fight over a few ELO points now !!! :-))) ok - will do so. did you buy gambit-tiger ?! >>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. brilliant. lets wait and see. "the morning has broken..."
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.