Author: Don Dailey
Date: 12:54:28 06/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1998 at 14:08:13, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On June 15, 1998 at 10:37:06, Don Dailey wrote: > >>You are always implying that you have some special insights and >>that others are in some kind of conservative rut. But all your >>ideas have been on an extremely high level of abstraction. Saying >>"use more knowledge" or "make your program search fewer nodes" >>is not a very coherent plan, and reveals no insight whatsover. > >I think he is right to say that programs need to learn to play more dynamically. > >But yes, he surrounds this with a lot of language that detracts from the issues. I'm mainly focused on absolute strength, if dynamic play gives me that I would be happy to persue it. I have discovered that a very conservative approach to almost all endeavors is rewarded. I discovered when playing tournament chess a huge rating jump simply by avoiding errors. Another big jump when I realized I didn't have to attack on every move. I only got into the 1900's but I did this with little knowledge or understanding. Tennis is the same. The club players are all more interested in getting the ball back over the net and always beat the young hot shots who are killing the ball, but making errors in the process. I know how to make my program more dynamic, but invariably it weakens the program. It seems in chess it's better to miss an opportunity occasionally than to impale yourself on your own sword. But I agree, I really would like to see my program have a little more "balls" too. Sometimes it just plays too passive and loses all its chances. >>You often use the time honored technique of being critical and >>pointing to the problems and saying it loud enough that no one >>notices you are not presenting any solutions. This makes it >>appear that you are privy to a better way when in fact you are >>not. >> >>But you have said nothing we do not already know. Every >>programmer on this group knows what the most serious problems >>of computer chess are. And each one of us is keenly interested >>in solving them. Stop attacking us as "materialists" which is >>a gross overstatement of what we actually do. We are simply >>engineers and will always be writing the strongest programs >>because we will always use the techniques that work best. > >What Thorsten wants is dynamism. The way he pushes for this is confusing, >because he attaches political and personal baggage to this, and is wedded to >some perceived attributes of specific implementation, and deathly opposed to >some others. He really goes overboard, and thinks your choice of approach has something to do with your politics and/or character. > >When I see phrases such as "techniques that work best" I think of the argument >between brute force and whatever the AI people have invented. I should have just said, "I do what seems to work best at the time" or something like this. No one really knows which techniques ultimately work best. >I don't think that what is going on here, I think at the root of all of this >it's just an argument about playing style, and that he'd be happy with a program >that played more dynamic chess, especially if you let him jump to erroneous >conclusions about how much knowledge the program really contains. I believe if programs didn't contain search depths and node counters he would not know the difference. >When everything else is stripped away or waded through, I think he has a point. >Chess programs haven't been very dynamic, they play like oatmeal. > >This has been something of a blind spot for us, because and oatmeal program >won't be able to take advantage of another program that is playing like oatmeal. > >I think that the more dynamic programs are more fun for sure, and that to a >degree that is probably getting larger, more dynamic play can result in >increased strength against other computers and against humans. > >bruce Thorsten has valid points, but he doesn't know how to communicate them effectively. It's like listening to a broken record, the same track over and over with no new information comming along to make things interesting. I think he see's a big war where none exist, you must be on one side (materialist) or the other (creative thinker.) - Don
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.