Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:27:05 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 12:07:00, José Carlos wrote: >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 ? No... we've done been down that road. You can find the discussion in the archives. By direct statement (and not mine, btw) "new paradigm is _not_ just some evaluation changes." > > 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'. It is basically "the kind of chess playing I like" where "I like" is very vague and non-specific. :) > > José C.
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.