Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 09:47:29 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 12:07:00, José Carlos wrote:
>>>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"?
Hi Bob,
the original century4 is much stronger than the version before,
due to interesting changes in the program.
I don't think it has much to do with tuning
on autoplayers.
it has something to do with creativity.
IMO the century4 plays different then century3 from ed schroeder.
so i saw ed is not far from going through that door
i would call the "new paradigm" room.
I know that we have quite a few visitors in that new world.
I think chris whittington initiated this new paradigm concept.
To say it with Karl Marx: "Ein Gespenst geht um in Europa - das Gespenst des"
new paradigms.
The idea is, IMO that 3 chess players of history have created a concept
that represents what humans understand under "new paradigm in chess",
you can say, nearly similar to what physicians would call david bohm/ john
wheeler/ jean e.charon as the "new physics" in their world.
These 3 chess players are IMO lasker, fischer, tal.
the masters of the new paradigm.
or even more, the world chess champion masters of it.
>>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 ?
not at all.
if you look into programs like chessmaster6000/8000 (doesn't matter which
version) or chess system tal (dos) or century4,
you will see that you can switch on and off all kind of search and evaluation
stuff.
it is more than only evaluation.
the idea now behind new paradigm is, to create a machine that
is not anymore playing accurate chess.
because there IS NO ACCURATE chess , maybe tablebases are,
and mates, but the rest is fantasy. We don't know what accuracy and
best moves are. we can only guess.
so why penetrating this BEST MOVE definition. make the programs fuzzy.
let them play the best move for the plan.
the observer decides which reality is real.
let the program decide which point of view of chess it believes.
in logic and materialism, or in planning and idealism.
> 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.
its more than that. but starting with evaluation is ONE.
the idea behind is that there is no BEST move.
And therefore it makes no sense to search for a best move. but for an idea.
for a plan.
search does not know if a move is good or not.
and evalutation function does not know either.
its unimportant who is right and who is wrong.
the move is a kind of superposition. and the observer decides.
how this move will be evaluated.
> I'd like to know 'the definition'.
chess system tal was IMO the beginning.
others follow.
i see that junior 7 is weaker than junior 6a because amir ban were more
interested in the new ideas than bringing a stronger junior into the
competition.
i see that century4 jumps on the train now.
and i see that shredder6 has also increased its evaluation influence.
if you want i can produce more games. from other positions.
against any program.
crafty against rebel century 4 Machëide ??
no problem.
which version of crafty do you like to see ??
which opening position ??
best wishes,
thorsten
> José C.
The original Chris Whittington article about the new paradigm,
alice and the mirror world of the looking glass, von manstein
and tal (as you can see from the hardware and software used in
this article, its a long time ago...):
Complete Chess System 2 - TAL
=============================
Classical paradigm
==================
When should we expect a major breakthrough in science ?
When will a lone developer 'step through the looking-glass' ?
Who will this developer be ?
The answer to the above two questions is of course whenever the old,
classical programmers say 'we've reached perfection, there is no way to
improve'; when the old paradigm says 'there is only one way'; when all
the developers produce roughly equal results.
This is the situation we have today with chess programs. The classical
paradigm is represented by Fritz3: fast and simple evaluation,
pre-processing of the position before the search; and all strength, all
hopes, in the search - nodes per second and search efficiency are the
buzzwords.
For a classical program, to keep the search fast, the evaluation at each
node must, of necessity, be brief. This evaluation is usually no more
than a weighting given for each piece on each square (for example a
knight might be worth 3.3 pawns on centre squares and 2.9 pawns on edge
squares) and evaluation of the pawn structure for doubled pawns, passed
pawns etc.. The classical pre-processing function looks for themes in
the position and adjusts the square weightings accordingly - for
example, if a knight is attacking a square next to the king, then
increase the weighting for all the squares that the queen could
cooperate with the knight in making a king attack, increase the knight
weighting to keep it on the original square, increase other cooperating
piece weightings and so on. There is no doubt that this approach works
but it cannot be the way forward. Pre-process ing knowledge becomes more
stupid with increasing search depth, as positions deep in the search
tree becomes more removed from the assumptions of the original position,
the square weighting adjustments become more irrelevant (why weight the
squares for the queen after the cooperating knight has been removed from
the board ?- but the classical paradigm doesn't understand that !). I
call this type of search Artificial Stupidity (AS). Since all the
current programs operate in this way, ELO grading lists and inter-program
tournaments are no more than a reflection of the partially-sighted
playing the blind, whose AS algorithm is most efficient, but it is not
chess.
They don't even know that they don't know
=========================================
Classic programs have static knowledge only, dynamic knowledge is beyond
the fast and simple evaluation function.
Statics:
- Material
- Structure
- Chronic weaknesses
- and more
Dynamics:
- Lead in development
- More active piece placement
- A specific and cooperative concentration of pieces
in a certain sector of the board.
- and more
Static features tend to be stable, they remain with time. Dynamic
features can be dissipated with time. Static features are easy to
calculate, classical programs include them. Dynamic features are
difficult to calculate, they rely on interaction between the pieces,
'looking-glass' programs will begin to include them. And it is the lack
of the difficult dynamic feature calculation that marks the classical
programs with so many bad games and bad moves - the types of games that
allow GM's to laugh at chess pro grams.
As GM John Nunn says 'the top programs occasionally win games against
grandmasters, but they habitually lose games against ordinary club
players, often making the most appalling anti-positional moves in the
process.' What else does can he expect ? The old classical program
finds a 24 move deep check thread, gets to the end of the thread, finds
it is not yet mate, and all it can do is add up the material, evaluate
the pawn structure and return a score that shows absolutely no concept
of the position ! To play chess without knowledge of chess is not to
play chess, strong players will always beat such programs with superior
knowledge. The classical program play chess as if it were the First
World War in the trenches, no concept of mobility, no concept of
cooperation of forces, no concept of knocking the enemy off balance with
well timed blows; just material and pawn structure - if it plays boring
chess, that's why - if it blunders against club players, that's why. It
understands nothing of consequence.
The philosophers of classical search claim that search finds everything
and knows everything - they give as an example the knight fork: Without
search the program knows that it is good to capture the queen with the
knight. With three ply the search knows that it is good to knight fork
the king and the queen. With five ply the search knows it is good to
play the knight to a position where it can threaten a fork and so on.
But the point must surely be that the search only has this knowledge
within the tree. At the leaf nodes it has no such knowledge. An
intelligent program can calculate as part of its evaluation function
whether a knight fork is available; thus the intelligent program has
this knowledge distributed evenly over the entire search tree. In this
way intelligence can replace search.
It is important here to distinguish between combinational knowledge and
dynamic knowledge. In our example of the knight fork above, the classical
program only has this 'knowledge' if the situation arises in tactics - the
classical program only generates this knowledge as part of a combination
to win the queen. If this win of the queen does not emerge from the
search, then the knowledge does not exist !
The situation is perhaps clearer (and more serious) in the case of a king
attack. If the classical program can find mate or win of material by some
line attacking the king, in such case it has knowledge of the king
attack; but if, at the search horizon, it has a strong attack, but not
yet any material won, or king mated, it does not know this is a good line !
The 'looking-glass' program can calculate the attack strength FROM ITS
EVALUATION FUNCTION. So, without actually finding mate or material win, the
looking-glass program has the dynamic knowledge of the attack.
The classical program has combinational knowledge only by resolution
of material within the search horizon. The looking-glass program has dynamic
knowledge from its evaluation function. The looking-glass program is a
planner, the classical program is a finder. The looking-glass program is
pro-active, it makes plans to exploit the position; the classical program
is re-active, it waits for a mistake by its opponent and then exploits it.
Dynamic knowledge v. Combinational knowledge
============================================
Oxford Softworks CCS2-v9.0
White: CCS2 486/33
Black: Genius2 486/33
Venue: 1 minute per move
Comment: 1-0
1. e4 e6
2. d4 d5 1
3. Nc3 Nf6 3
4. Bg5 Be7 5
5. e5 Nfd7 8
6. h4 Bxg5
7. hxg5 { CCS2's opening book ends }
.... Qxg5
8. Nf3 Qd8 { Genius2's opening book ends }
9. Bd3 h6
10. Qd2 { CCS2's dynamic knowledge - preventing O-O because
of the threat of Rxh6 }
.... c5
11. Nb5 O-O { Catastrophic - any reasonable club player can
see this move is a disaster, but Genius2 has no
dynamic knowledge, there is no immediate mate so Genius2
thinks all is ok ! }
12. Rxh6 { CCS2 needs only a few seconds thought to find this move }
bR bN bB bQ -- bR bK --
bP bP -- bN -- bP bP --
-- -- -- -- bP -- -- wR
-- wN bP bP wP -- -- --
-- -- -- wP -- -- -- --
-- -- -- wB -- wN -- --
wP wP wP wQ -- wP wP --
wR -- -- -- wK -- -- --
.... a6 { Incredibly, Genius2 thinks the position is even ! }
13. Bh7+ Kh8
14. Rh5 axb5 { Genius2 still thinks this game is drawn ! }
15. Ke2 { CCS2 finds the killer move .... }
.... Nf6 { Genius2 begins to see the trouble now ... }
16. exf6 Qxf6
17. Rah1 g6
18. Bxg6+ Kg8
19. Rh8+ Qxh8
20. Rxh8+ Kg7
21. Rh7+ Kxg6
22. Qh6+ Kf5 { and mate in 2 more moves. Genius2, the classical
program, soundly defeated by dynamic knowledge.
CCS2 didn't know its attack would win material or
deliver mate, it just knew, dynamically, the the
attack was strong and worth the sacrifice of material. }
This game clearly shows the development and strength of the 'looking-glass'
paradigm. Genius2, a classical program, seemed to have no idea of what
was going on. CCS2 had dynamic knowledge of the strength of its attack from
move 12 on, CCS2 knew from its evaluation function; Genius2 only began to
see the trouble on move 15, seven half-moves later, Genius2's knowledge
was combinational, only 'known' when the search found it.
Who will be the developer ?
===========================
To answer our third question - 'who will be the developer ?', it is
necessary to look at the personality of the classical programmers and
their hangers-on. These programmers are characterised by a failure to
show their emotions (do they ever smile), fear (just watch them
operating at tournaments), refusal to discuss how their programs work
(just try talking to them) , aversion to taking risks. It has always
surprised me that the 'top' programmers are not good chess players. The
hangers-on only make a little money, they jealously support their
chosen proteges, and viciously attack their opponents. The hangers-on
know little, pretend to know much and are governed by fear and greed.
Overall the impression is of a static, non-risk taking, hostile, World
War I environment. The new paradigm will come from an unexpected
quarter. From a developer with extrovert personality, accustomed to
taking risks, a developer with chess knowledge, probably someone
unpopular with the classical paradigm supporters, certainly unpopular
with the hangers-on and computer chess entourage. This developer will
have been and certainly will be furiously attacked by the classicists.
Search - the lazy programmer's way to avoid evaluating a position.
==================================================================
The new paradigm differs from the classical by one simple conceptual switch.
The classical paradigm makes fast and simple evaluation at each node and
generates intelligence from the search tree. The classical programmer
looks for ways to make his search more efficient and his evaluation
function simpler and faster. The 'looking-glass' paradigm makes slow and
complex evaluations at each node and prefers to prune the search tree by
use of this evaluation function. In this model search is to be avoided
unless absolutely necessary. Thus the search tree is not central to the
new paradigm, rather the search tree is used to find details overlooked,
or mistakes made, by the evaluation function. The 'looking-glass'
paradigm has the components of human thought - detailed, intuitive
evaluation, with search carried out to ensure that the program is not
falling into any traps. I estimate that the difference in nodes per
second between and extreme classical program and a 'looking-glass'
program will be of the order of 20-30 times, sufficient to give the
classical program an extra two plies of search (albeit with reduced
knowledge at the nodes). Thus the increased knowledge of the
'looking-glass' program has to compensate for this apparently reduced
search depth. The looking-glass strategy necessitates much programming
effort, and requires the programmer to have an exceptionally good
knowledge of chess strategy and tactics. When such a program is first
being developed it will constantly be outplayed by classical programs,
for classical programs see everything within their horizon and the newly
developing 'looking-glass' program cannot yet hope to know sufficient
tactical and positional themes to compete, but our experience shows that
once breakthrough (a knowledge o f sufficient chess themes to compensate
for reduced search depth) occurs the looking-glass program begins to
consistently outplay the classical programs. Further advantages emerge
from the high level of chess knowledge in the evaluation function -
better move selection and move sorting, resulting in more efficient
search - more possibilities of accurate forward pruning, resulting in
smaller search trees. With increases in tree size (from faster
hardware), these advantages are geometric.
B-Search or A-B-Search? - NO! Evaluation based or search based!
===============================================================
The classicists maintain the computer chess dichotomy of
B-search (which I understand means pruning occurs at all levels
of the tree) or A-B Search (which apparently means that part of the
search is full width).
The looking-glass programmer condemns this dichotomy as meaningless.
The new paradigm makes the issue clear: chess programs either have simple
evaluation and generate intelligence through search, or have complex
evaluations and use limited search as a backup to cover oversights
and mistakes. All chess programs prune in one way or another, but
looking-glass programs, with complex evaluation, are able to prune more.
Of course, the issue is not so black and white. There is a grey scale
between the extreme looking-glass (human play style) and extreme
classical style. At the classical end of the scale the B or A-B dichotomy
tries to position the program on the scale, but basically classicists
believe in search. At the looking-glass end of the scale the issue is
how much does the evaluation function allow us to prune or extend - how
many risks can we take based on our evaluation function ? Basically
looking-glass programmers believe in evaluation.
Von Manstein
============
If, as is said, chess is war, then there must be lessons to
be learnt from military history. I have already alluded to the static,
boring First World War style of the classical programs (and their
programmers !). The opposite style can be found in several histories,
Rommel in North Africa, Alexander the Great against Darius, Von Manstein
in Russia. Alexander, despite being outnumbered many times, concentrated
the powerful mobile part of his army, attacked the stronger Persians,
cut through and went straight for Darius himself. The bulk of Darius's
army was not engaged, but the battle was decisively won - a classic king
attack. Von Manstein (and Rommel) both understood that the power of the
outnumbered German army lay in superior staff work, concentration of
forces, striking blows to knock the enemy off balance. The looking-glass
chess program must contain knowledge of these dynamic elements; and it
is only the looking-glass program that has the knowledge and evaluation
time available to calculate such ephemerals.
Tal function
============
To find a chess player who understood the king attack, the
concentration of forces, the striking of blows to unbalance the
opponent, one need look no further than Michael Tal, Russian
grandmaster, and player of such romantic and swashbuckling style that
his games continue to thrill all lovers of chess. For the developers of
the Complete Chess System 2 it was an emotional, and unexpected,
experience to find their program playing, sacrificing, in the style of
Tal. Opposing programs, well respected, began to fall like dominoes,
they appeared to have absolutely no understanding of CCS2's style. We
were almost able to guarantee exciting games against all our opponents.
We believe that the progress we have made with our program, the
looking-glass algorithm which we have developed gives us the
justification to call our program the Complete Chess System 2 - TAL.
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.