Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:53:47 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2000 at 23:25:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >That remains to be seen. I have watched my share of games where you were >reporting +3, then 2, then suddenly +.5 and so forth. I Wasn't being >negative about your program. I was being negative about this so-called >"paradigm shift" that Thorsten likes to mention. Such a shift is _not_ >hard to do. CSTal did it. But then making it _work_ is something else. It works Bob. the main problem with CSTal (that CSTal was not that strong) wasn`t that Chris was a lousy programmer. He knew about chess and imlemented new ideas, he was also risky enough to do such a weird program, BUT his programming abilities were limited. CSTal works. it would kill its enemies like hell when it would make more NPS and when the bugs would be out of the program. But the idea works. Its not important that the score changes. the score MUST change. its only important to win. cstal was not always able to win, but not because it played weak, it lost because it was outsearched. Gambit-Tiger is a program you cannot OUTSEARCH that easy. And it makes 8 x more NPS. The paradigm is shiftet Bob, in a few years ALL chess programs will have to play like gambit-tiger and cstal. if they don´t do, they can never catch gambit-tiger. Its over IMO. the days of accurate computerchess have are over because they don´t get the most points anymore. you get more points playing unsound moves. chris was right. Kust my opinion. Nothing personal Bob. why not a paradigm change ? a new century has just began a few months before. why not change old ideas ? when it works. >If you do so, fine. But I have seen my share of evidence that says +3.0 >scores when material is _even_ is _dangerous_. +1? Maybe. Even +2. But >to give up a piece for an attack that might well fall flat is nice for wild >chess, but I don't believe it will work for _consistent_ chess. how can gambit-tiger win dutch-championship and wipe out shredder4 with 11.5-2.5 (only 1 loss !! rest wins and 3 draws) when it WILL NOT WORK FOR CONSISTENT CHESS ???? can you beat a world-computer-chess-champion (paderborn) 11.5-2.5 by playing Inaccurate ?? you can ! therefore i do say: the paradigm has shifted. chris w.´s crazy ideas have been proved right. what a surprise, isn´t it :-)) >Feel free to prove me wrong of course. I have been pretty speculative in my >own way, contrary to what Thorsten might think. >>If it's not hard to "tune" your program to play moves like 43.Rc6 in >>Nimzo8-Gambit, then why don't you do it right now? >> >>Do it, Bob. Do it right now. And let your overtuned version meet Gambit Tiger. >> > > >Why would I want to do this? Just because you say so? I don't like that >type of chess from a machine. Because I _know_ that they don't "understand". >And relying on 'I hope" is dangerous. Perhaps your search is good enough to >weed out some of the failures, I don't know. But it isn't weeding out anywhere >near all of this stuff. no. relying on I HOPE is pretty normal. your relying on EXACT is the exception. you lived 40 years in the paradigm of EXACT computer-chess, like newton lived in his flat-2-dimensional world of forces. Then came einstein and showed that the forces are just part of the space not beeing flat. Believing is what makes a human. Hoping. and you cannot measure hope or believing. how do you want to measure Rc6 ? is it working ? is it not working ? is it correct or incorrect ? you let your program NOT play those unsound moves, therefore they cannot defend against christophes gambit-tiger, because they cannot SEEEEEEE the things come. And if they eat anything he gives, they are only PASSIVE followers. they have to do what gambit-tiger gives them. if he sacs, they have to eat. they lost completely the control about the game. Or what do you want to do with moves like Rc6 ? You cannot defend against those moves. not with a hyatt-paradigm- program. You would need what you don´t have. >If you can beat my ears off, so be it. But don't be surprised when some start >taking advantage of such 'speculation'. It isn't difficult... CSTal was >sort of scarey at first. Then it because sort of boring... ?!? depends. i don´t find it boring. and i don´t find gambit-tiger boring. >>> I will be more >>>impressed when I see lots of such moves where _most_ are right... >> >> >> >>I will be impressed when I see Crafty playing just ONE move of thing kind. >> >> > >I will be more impressed by other things. IE I have seen GM's have it >easier with gambit tiger than with regular tiger. of course !! because GM´s have THIS kind of knowledge much better in their brains. GM´s and any human see that Rc6 is the right move to play. without thinking they play moves like Rc6. This is the difference between quantity and quality. but christophe will teach gambit-tiger about this knowledge, as chris w. has done, and then the GM´s will NOT beat gambit-tiger more easily. don´t you understand ? the reason they beat a mechanistic-chess-program less good is that they know about Rc6 believers moves, and have problems (kramnik game4) to play accurate. therefore they win maybe better against gambit-tiger (if you are true) and this will be over when christophe (or chris) have tuned and programmed on this. meanwhile it is good enough to beat the bean-counter programs not recognizing stuff like Rc6. otherwise a 11.5-2.5 against shredder4 (that is not a weak program at all) would not be possible. >based on some games >on ICC. They don't seem to be afraid of what seem to be the typical types >of king safety analysis dealing with open files and pieces close to the >king... If they are convinced the attack is going nowhere, they will snap >up the piece and take it home... And they have. and in future they will have more problems. but this is the only way to beat both. humans AND dump-chess programs. to shift the paradigm. > No, I don't know how the >new program is doing vs all players. But it doesn't seem to be significantly >better or worse than any other new program, IMHO. ?!? it is better. it can play chess, the others simulate it. >We will see, I suppose... yes. time will tell it. >>That's where computer chess finally meets human chess. exactly. this is why the old paradigm is dead. >There is also deep water. I'm only aware of _one_ person that was able >to successfully walk on water. Some 2,000 years ago. :) :-))) learning swimming is enough to get to the girls.
This page took 0.02 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.