Author: Joe Besogn
Date: 12:16:50 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 15:01:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? >> >>By his compulsory need to belittle the value of speculative evaluations 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)? > >That is simply 100% wrong. 1. I didn't "belittle" speculative evaluations. I >have more than my fair share of speculative terms, from the two pawns on the 6th Pardom me for jumping in, but two connected passed pawns on the sixth against a rook, and with the enemy king out of the way, is a known win. This is not speculation. Speculation is the attribution of a score to a risky situation. No risk, no speculation.
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.