Author: martin fierz
Date: 15:56:57 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 12:47:29, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. physicians are physicists in english. being one myself, i can tell you that like your new paradigm in computer chess, the "new physics" of these guys has not got much support from the broad mass of physicists. if you wanted to talk about a *real* paradigm shift in physics, you could try relativity theory or quantum mechanics, both of which replaced older theories. >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. again, there are many names associated with paradigm shifts in chess. steinitz and nimzovich come to mind. lasker, fischer & tal were of course great players, but they didn't change chess the way the others did. >you will see that you can switch on and off all kind of search and evaluation >stuff. so you can go from old to new paradigm by changing the evaluation and switching some search extensions on or off? that seems to be a small paradigm shift... i have tried many speculative evaluation parameters in my checkers program. and many speculative search extensions. it has played beautiful games sometimes thanks to them, but overall, it was always worse than the normal version. i would never dream to call a better-performing forward pruning algorithm a paradigm shift! your C4 version also is a very classic chess program: search, evaluate, back up values. what's new here?? there definitely is no more (and no less) planning involved at any stage in your settings for C4 than in the standard settings! >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. come on, if i can capture your queen for nothing, it's the best move. and we know it... >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. so how exactly does your god-like century 4 look for a plan then? or does it make no sense either to try to understand your posts :-) ? aloha martin
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.