Author: José Carlos
Date: 09:07:00 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 11:47:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 18, 2002 at 09:59:28, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>Using commercially rebel-century4, and a style that came to my mind when reading >>Dr.Emanuel Lasker, worldchess-champion, mathematician and philosoph in >>"Philosophy of the unattainable", Leipzig 1919. >> >>The position was initiated by thomas lagershausen in a german chess forum. >>White, knaak, sacced a piece, and the question was, if the white position is >>to win. >> >>As you can see the normal century4 is still too much "old paradigm", but the new >>style macheide.eng comes close to new paradigm?. > >How can simple "style" changes cause a program to go from "old paradigm" >to "new paradigm"? > >This definition of "new paradigm" is so badly flawed... But what is the definition? Is it something like: Old paradigm = non speculative eval New paradigm = speculative eval ? If that is the definition, it seems that a few changes in eval weights can do the trick... but then defining a paradigm switch due to a few eval weights changes sounds nonsense. I'd like to know 'the definition'. José C.
This page took 0.01 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.