Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:12:53 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 15:16:50, Joe Besogn wrote: >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. Wrong. This is speculation. The speculation can be wrong. Here is an example: [D]3r4/8/PP6/8/7k/8/8/7K b - - 0 1 Black is winning inspite of the "known win". A good speculation is a speculation that is correct in most of the cases and it is a good speculation. Uri
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.